This is topic So, um, where ARE these WMDs? in forum The Flameboard at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/11/1172.html

---

Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
 
http://www.canoe.ca/Columnists/goldstein_apr13.html

Just to let you know, the author of this article is FOR the war in Iraq.
 

---

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
 
I haven't encountered any new news on the nuclear materials finds, and they haven't conclusively reported results of the "is it sarin, is it pesticide, but sarin IS pesticide" find. I did hear this morning that a unit was digging around several trucks found "buried" near Baghdad, whose descriptions seemed to match the "mobile bio labs" Powell spoke of before the UN.

You should know by now the "pro-war" crowd is just as anxious to find WMD as the anti-war crowd is anxious for them not to. Now that the real looking can start, it's only a matter of time.

That said, I like the way he tore apart the "they're gonna plant evidence" paranoid conspiracy theory. Those people need psychiatric help.
 

---

Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
 
Like those people who believed the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a fake. What fools.
 

---

Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
 
Apparently, they're now in Syria.
 

---

Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
 

quote:

---

But in fairness, (suggestions that the coalition will manufacture evidence if none exists) flies in the face of what has happened since the start of this war. Each time coalition forces, who are, after all, soldiers and not scientists, have reported a suspected chemical or biological weapons find, it has been the U.S. administration itself that has shot it down within the next few days, following further investigation and testing.

---

quote:

---

Meanwhile, U.S. military sources Tuesday stepped back from claims made a day earlier that coalition troops had found 11 mobile chemical and biological laboratories buried south of Baghdad.

The 11 cargo containers were filled with new laboratory equipment apparently intended to make conventional weapons, said Chief Warrant Officer 2 Monte Gonzalez, the head of the team brought in to examine them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TSN:
So, if he destroyed the weapons, doesn't that mean he did what we were asking all along? Meaning there was no reason to invade?

---

Well, no, of course not. I mean everybody knows the real reason we were there was to liberate the oppressed Iraqi people. Only world leaders of silly countries like England thought we were there because of weapons of mass destruction. It was never about that for us, was it? We were really just concerned with the plight of those poor, poor beleaguered citizens (who as coincidence has it, are so precariously perched above the world's second largest petroleum reserves.)

[ May 30, 2003, 07:48 PM: Message edited by: Balaam Xumucane ]
 

---

Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
 
Many Questions Below:

What if, hypothetically, the WMDs were destroyed in 1998 during Opertaion Desert Fox? I believe those air strikes were targeted at Iraq's weapons plants, and other sites. What if the plants and other facilities were so badly damaged that they could not produce any more Weapons of Mass Destruction? If this happened, then Saddam probably would not cease in his effort to obtain those weapons. But what if, with all his efforts, his scientists and minions could not produce any more WMDs? And the fact that UN Inspectors could not find any biological or chemical weapons was because they really could not rpoduce them anymore?
Does anyone believe that Iraq did not have WMDs (after Desert Fox) because they could not produce them? Isn't it possible they had them but they were destroyed in the attacks amd they couldn't get new ones? Sure, Saddam wanted them, but what if he couldn't get them?

One last thing: why'd Dick Cheney say in August of '02 that Saddam would have nuclear weapons "fairly soon." Wasn't that a blatant lie? And why hasn't anyone asked him about that statement? If it wasn't a lie, and his intelligence was wrong, then why can we trust Powell that his intelligence was correct?
 

---

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
Well, "fairly soon" is kinda vague...
 

---

Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
 
*shrug*
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
I've got a weapon of mass destruction in my pants.
 

---

Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
 
I think that's a Weapon of Humorous Distraction there, Jason. Something you'd whip out on stage to give everyone a good laugh and make some few other men feel better about themselves.....

Unless of course you're referring to your inability to change underwear in anything less than once a week.
 

---

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
 
Is Jason stepping on Simons, umm, sizer??
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
YOu guys are just mad that i won't let you play "Hans Blix" with me.
 

---

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 
"Play Hans Blix"? You want us to search and search for it, and still come up w/ nothing?
 

---

Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
 
Wouldn't be at all unrealistic, would it...?



 

---

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
 
We haven't found Saddam Hussein yet, either. Perhaps he doesn't really exist. Perhaps the entire last 30 years of Iraq's rule has been an elaborate put-up job so that Halliburton could make a few bucks.

Well, it's no sillier than any of these other conspiracy theories.

quote:

---

Australian Defense Minister Robert Hill said Saturday the purpose of the expanded search team was to get the full picture of the WMD situation in Iraq.

Speaking at an Asian Security Conference in Singapore, Hill said the search was already yielding evidence but "whether these so-called smoking guns as such can be found, I don't know."

"I've no doubt at all that the picture at the end of this process will be of somebody who believed in weapons of mass destruction as a strategic tool ... and was clearly prepared to use them," Hill said.

---

quote:

---

...and was clearly prepared to use them....

---

quote:

---

You can be mentally/emotionally prepared for something, and not be physically prepared to do it, or vice-versa.

---

quote:

---

Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made?

Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.

And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who's really worked on this for any length of time believes that, too.

---

quote:

---

Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces," Clinton said.

"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton.

Clinton also stated that, while other countries also had weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors

---

quote:

---

"Along with Prime Minister (Tony) Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning ," Clinton said

---

quote:

---

"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people," Clinton said.

---

quote:

---

So, um, where ARE these WMDs?

---

quote:

---

It's long past time for this administration to be held accountable. Over the last two years we've become accustomed to the pattern. Each time the administration comes up with another whopper, partisan supporters � a group that includes a large segment of the news media � obediently insist that black is white and up is down. Meanwhile the "liberal" media report only that some people say that black is black and up is up. And some Democratic politicians offer the administration invaluable cover by making excuses and playing down the extent of the lies.

If this same lack of accountability extends to matters of war and peace, we're in very deep trouble. The British seem to understand this: Max Hastings, the veteran war correspondent � who supported Britain's participation in the war � writes that "the prime minister committed British troops and sacrificed British lives on the basis of a deceit, and it stinks."

It's no answer to say that Saddam was a murderous tyrant. I could point out that many of the neoconservatives who fomented this war were nonchalant, or worse, about mass murders by Central American death squads in the 1980's. But the important point is that this isn't about Saddam: it's about us. The public was told that Saddam posed an imminent threat. If that claim was fraudulent, the selling of the war is arguably the worst scandal in American political history � worse than Watergate, worse than Iran-contra. Indeed, the idea that we were deceived into war makes many commentators so uncomfortable that they refuse to admit the possibility.

But here's the thought that should make those commentators really uncomfortable. Suppose that this administration did con us into war. And suppose that it is not held accountable for its deceptions, so Mr. Bush can fight what Mr. Hastings calls a "khaki election" next year. In that case, our political system has become utterly, and perhaps irrevocably, corrupted.

---

quote:

---

Because We Could
Thomas L. Friedman
New York Times Op-Ed Columnist
Wednesday, June 4, 2003 Posted: 7:02 AM EDT (1102 GMT)

The failure of the Bush team to produce any weapons of mass destruction (W.M.D.'s) in Iraq is becoming a big, big story. But is it the real story we should be concerned with? No. It was the wrong issue before the war, and it's the wrong issue now.

Why? Because there were actually four reasons for this war: the real reason, the right reason, the moral reason and the stated reason.

The "real reason" for this war, which was never stated, was that after 9/11 America needed to hit someone in the Arab-Muslim world. Afghanistan wasn't enough because a terrorism bubble had built up over there � a bubble that posed a real threat to the open societies of the West and needed to be punctured. This terrorism bubble said that plowing airplanes into the World Trade Center was O.K., having Muslim preachers say it was O.K. was O.K., having state-run newspapers call people who did such things "martyrs" was O.K. and allowing Muslim charities to raise money for such "martyrs" was O.K. Not only was all this seen as O.K., there was a feeling among radical Muslims that suicide bombing would level the balance of power between the Arab world and the West, because we had gone soft and their activists were ready to die.

The only way to puncture that bubble was for American soldiers, men and women, to go into the heart of the Arab-Muslim world, house to house, and make clear that we are ready to kill, and to die, to prevent our open society from being undermined by this terrorism bubble. Smashing Saudi Arabia or Syria would have been fine. But we hit Saddam for one simple reason: because we could, and because he deserved it and because he was right in the heart of that world. And don't believe the nonsense that this had no effect. Every neighboring government � and 98 percent of terrorism is about what governments let happen � got the message. If you talk to U.S. soldiers in Iraq they will tell you this is what the war was about.

The "right reason" for this war was the need to partner with Iraqis, post-Saddam, to build a progressive Arab regime. Because the real weapons of mass destruction that threaten us were never Saddam's missiles. The real weapons that threaten us are the growing number of angry, humiliated young Arabs and Muslims, who are produced by failed or failing Arab states � young people who hate America more than they love life. Helping to build a decent Iraq as a model for others � and solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict � are the necessary steps for defusing the ideas of mass destruction, which are what really threaten us.

The "moral reason" for the war was that Saddam's regime was an engine of mass destruction and genocide that had killed thousands of his own people, and neighbors, and needed to be stopped.

But because the Bush team never dared to spell out the real reason for the war, and (wrongly) felt that it could never win public or world support for the right reasons and the moral reasons, it opted for the stated reason: the notion that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction that posed an immediate threat to America. I argued before the war that Saddam posed no such threat to America, and had no links with Al Qaeda, and that we couldn't take the nation to war "on the wings of a lie." I argued that Mr. Bush should fight this war for the right reasons and the moral reasons. But he stuck with this W.M.D. argument for P.R. reasons.

Once the war was over and I saw the mass graves and the true extent of Saddam's genocidal evil, my view was that Mr. Bush did not need to find any W.M.D.'s to justify the war for me. I still feel that way. But I have to admit that I've always been fighting my own war in Iraq. Mr. Bush took the country into his war. And if it turns out that he fabricated the evidence for his war (which I wouldn't conclude yet), that would badly damage America and be a very serious matter.

But my ultimate point is this: Finding Iraq's W.M.D.'s is necessary to preserve the credibility of the Bush team, the neocons, Tony Blair and the C.I.A. But rebuilding Iraq is necessary to win the war. I won't feel one whit more secure if we find Saddam's W.M.D.'s, because I never felt he would use them on us. But I will feel terribly insecure if we fail to put Iraq onto a progressive path. Because if that doesn't happen, the terrorism bubble will reinflate and bad things will follow. Mr. Bush's credibility rides on finding W.M.D.'s, but America's future, and the future of the Mideast, rides on our building a different Iraq. We must not forget that.

---

quote:

---

"must be made to account for the thousands of tons of chemical precursors, the thousands of liters of biological warfare agents, the thousands of missing chemical munitions, the unaccounted-for Scud missiles, and the weaponized VX poison that the United Nations has itself declared missing."

---

quote:

---

The "moral reason" for the war was that Saddam's regime was an engine of mass destruction and genocide that had killed thousands of his own people, and neighbors, and needed to be stopped.

---

quote:

---

But because the Bush team never dared to spell out the real reason for the war, and (wrongly) felt that it could never win public or world support for the right reasons and the moral reasons, it opted for the stated reason: the notion that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction that posed an immediate threat to America. I argued before the war that Saddam posed no such threat to America, and had no links with Al Qaeda, and that we couldn't take the nation to war "on the wings of a lie." I argued that Mr. Bush should fight this war for the right reasons and the moral reasons. But he stuck with this W.M.D. argument for P.R. reasons.

---

• It really wasn't about WMDs - even though we said it was.
• It really wasn't about pre-emption - even though we said it was.
• It really wasn't about the security of the United States - even though we said it was.

quote:

---

Mr. Bush took the country into his war. And if it turns out that he fabricated the evidence for his war (which I wouldn't conclude yet), that would badly damage America and be a very serious matter.

---

Friedman got it right in that part.
 

---

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
 
GOP Senator: Iraq probe 'premature'

For fun adventures in contrast:

Opposition leaders turn on Blair in Iraq weapons imbroglio

Imbroglio is the coolest word ever. Anyway, it seems clear that, despite your favored political spin, this is going to be a major, possibly even decisive, issue for the future of both leaders. Well, maybe just Blair. Bush's reelection is, I suspect, already in the bag.
 

---

Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
 
Blair is finished; that much is for sure. I saw the House of Commons thing on the news and thought it was quite hilarious.

Bush should be finished, but knowing that he has many friends on Capitol Hill will probably save him from harm. As for his re-election, yes, it may already be "in the bag."
 

---

Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
 
I can say that in no uncertain terms the Canadian Liberal government will have a phenomenally easier re-election than Bush.
 

---

Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
 
Don't hold your breath.
 

---

Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
 
Back on the subject of WMDs, I wonder if Rob disagrees with this guy
 

---

Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
 
Bad link Tom.
 

---

Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
 
Well, it was to the Guardian.

quote:

---

Blair is finished; that much is for sure. I saw the House of Commons thing on the news and thought it was quite hilarious.

---

quote:

---

Bush's statements, in chronological order, were:

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."

United Nations Address
September 12, 2002

"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."

Radio Address
October 5, 2002

"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."

"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."

"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States"

"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" - his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
October 7, 2002

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."

State of the Union Address
January 28, 2003

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003

........

So what are we now to conclude if Bush's statements are found, indeed, to be as grossly inaccurate as they currently appear to have been?

After all, no weapons of mass destruction have been found, and given Bush's statements, they should not have been very hard to find - for they existed in large quantities, "thousands of tons" of chemical weapons alone. Moreover, according to the statements, telltale facilities, groups of scientists who could testify, and production equipment also existed.

So where is all that? And how can we reconcile the White House's unequivocal statements with the fact that they may not exist?

There are two main possibilities. One that something is seriously wrong within the Bush White House's national security operations. That seems difficult to believe. The other is that the President has deliberately misled the nation, and the world.

........

.... In the three decades since Watergate, this is the first potential scandal I have seen that could make Watergate pale by comparison. If the Bush Administration intentionally manipulated or misrepresented intelligence to get Congress to authorize, and the public to support, military action to take control of Iraq, then that would be a monstrous misdeed.

As I remarked in an earlier column, this Administration may be due for a scandal. While Bush narrowly escaped being dragged into Enron, which was not, in any event, his doing. But the war in Iraq is all Bush's doing, and it is appropriate that he be held accountable.

To put it bluntly, if Bush has taken Congress and the nation into war based on bogus information, he is cooked. Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be "a high crime" under the Constitution's impeachment clause. It would also be a violation of federal criminal law, including the broad federal anti-conspiracy statute, which renders it a felony "to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose."

It's important to recall that when Richard Nixon resigned, he was about to be impeached by the House of Representatives for misusing the CIA and FBI. After Watergate, all presidents are on notice that manipulating or misusing any agency of the executive branch improperly is a serious abuse of presidential power.

---

quote:

---

Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation's wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and the missiles to deliver them

---

quote:

---

"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton.

Clinton also stated that, while other countries also had weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors.

---

quote:

---

If the Bush Administration intentionally manipulated or misrepresented intelligence to get Congress to authorize, and the public to support, military action to take control of Iraq, then that would be a monstrous misdeed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cartmaniac:
It amuses me that whenever Rob screams "Clinton did it too!" at the top of his lungs in response to Bush being criticized, he's commiting the exact same "TWO WRONGS DON'T MAKE ONE RIGHT!" fallacy he always accuses his opponents of.

---

From what I hear, four wrongs squared, times two wrongs to the fourth power, divided by a particular formula DO make a right.
 

---

Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
 
and if you do it in reverse, you get a left...

The fact that Blix has come out and said the intel he was given was crap, combined with the fact that all that the coalition teams have found are 2 trucks which may or may not be mobile biological labs it does seem a bit suspicious. Especially with the claims that the dossier that was released been altered in some way by Downing Street.

Of course, it could just be 'rogue elements' in the security services. Because if you can't trust an ex-member of the Communist Party, who can you trust?
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
You don't trust the government?
Don't let Herr Ashcroft's secret internet police hear that.


Did they have WMD's?
Mabye.

Were they in UN Violation of the treaties they signed to end the Gulf War?
Yes.

Should we have invaded Iraq and freed it's people?
Yes: ten years ago.

The biggest bitch I have about the war is not the legality of it or Kofi whining because his pupett U.N. was ignored.
It's that we have not captured or killed Saddam himself. The man's a butcher on par with his idol: Stalin.
Untill he, and his murdering rapist fuck sons are either in jail or a grave there is only a hollow victory.
 

---

Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
 
Now, if you hadn't given Saddam a carte blanche thirty years ago, or turned a blind eye when he pulled an Auschwitz: The Sequel on the Kurds with top-grade CIA nerve gas, the past decade or so MIGHT have been more pleasant for the Iraqi people.

But far be it from me to smudge the silky moral fibre of the U! S! A!, a Divine Force of Good that concerns itself with the well-being of humans throughout the globe, as it demonstrated time and again in Cambodja, Chile, Iran... history is rife with such Acts of Benevolence!

But, y'know, just so there won't be any misunderstanding, I *am*, somewhere deep down, glad humanity has one less fuckwit in its midst.

[ June 08, 2003, 02:03 PM: Message edited by: Cartmaniac ]
 

---

Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
 
Actually, Saddam is likely still alive. So, he's still in humanity's midst, just not capable of doing anything.
And so is Osama bin Laden.
And there are plenty of other ruthless dictators out there, just that they are our strategically important allies and, therefore, "double-plus democratic."
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
I'm all for human rights, fair trials, due process and political change by the people's will.

That being said, someone needs to just kill these bastards (Bin Laden, Saddam, etc.).

It should be their own people that do it so they'll have some closeure from the millions Saddam has killed (or to curtail the fanatisim BBim Laden spreads)but if the US has to do it and pisses off the world as a result, I can live with that.

Yes, the US was in bed with these scmbags and it is shameful.
But don't think for even a minute that only the US was in that bed: When it was a biiig chess match of the West against the evil Communists, everybody was paying evil fucks like these to fight the USSR.
The UN gave them food, medical supplies and logistic support in "humanatarian aid".
The US, France, Germany, Canada, Britan, Japan and almost certainly Austrailla all either contributed or sold rescourses or equipment to these same fuckers so the West could sleep easier at night knowing it was helping "freedom fighters" defend themselves.
I'm NOT saying the US was right to equip these nut-jobs in the first place, but please do NOT single out the US as "helping" them if you're going to leave out all our partners in those sorry ventures.
 

---

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
 
Why we didn't remove Saddam, the short-short version:

1980's: We haten the Iranians more. They hated us more, too. The Iraqis hated the Iranians. They also hated the Communists. This made their leadership seem slightly less evil than the rest of the Middle East.

1991: We had the choice between removing Saddam on our own, or maintaining the fragile "coalition" created to drive him out of Kuwait. We chose poorly.

1992-2000: Sitting president more concerned with polls, interns, avoiding impeachment, bombing cardboard targets in Kosovo, restoring dictator to Haiti.
 

---

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Veers:
"Oh, it was Saddam's job to give the inspectors his WMDs when they came" are just looking for excuses, because he could not have done that because he did not have the weapons.

---

quote:

---

And, on another note, it seems that there is much speculation about whether those "mobile chemical lab trailers" or whatever were what they are said to be. So, if that is the case and they were not weapons trailers, then our administration has been lying to us AGAIN for the past several days.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TSN:

"1980's: We haten the Iranians more. They hated us more, too. The Iraqis hated the Iranians. They also hated the Communists. This made their leadership seem slightly less evil than the rest of the Middle East."

So, really, how "evil" a government is has nothing to do w/ how it treats its citizens or anything like that. It's simply based upon how many points of international contention they agree with us on?

---

quote:

---

Questions over the claimed purpose of trailer for making biological weapons include:

� The lack of any trace of pathogens found in the fermentation tanks. According to experts, when weapons inspectors checked tanks in the mid-Nineties that had been scoured to disguise their real use, traces of pathogens were still detectable.

� The use of canvas sides on vehicles where technicians would be working with dangerous germ cultures.

� A shortage of pumps required to create vacuum conditions required for working with germ cultures and other processes usually associated with making biological weapons.

� The lack of an autoclave for steam sterilisation, normally a prerequisite for any kind of biological production. Its lack of availability between production runs would threaten to let in germ contaminants, resulting in failed weapons.

� The lack of any easy way for technicians to remove germ fluids from the processing tank.

One of those expressing severe doubts about the alleged mobile germ labs is Professor Harry Smith, who chairs the Royal Society's working party on biological weapons.

He told The Observer 'I am concerned about the canvas sides. Ideally, you would want airtight facilities for making something like anthrax. Not only that, it is a very resistant organism and even if the Iraqis cleaned the equipment, I would still expect to find some trace of it.'

His view is shared by the working group of the Federation of American Scientists and by the CIA, which states: 'Senior Iraqi officials of the al-Kindi Research, Testing, Development, and Engineering facility in Mosul were shown pictures of the mobile production trailers, and they claimed that the trailers were used to chemically produce hydrogen for artillery weather balloons.'

Artillery balloons are essentially balloons that are sent up into the atmosphere and relay information on wind direction and speed allowing more accurate artillery fire. Crucially, these systems need to be mobile.

The Observer has discovered that not only did the Iraq military have such a system at one time, but that it was actually sold to them by the British. In 1987 Marconi, now known as AMS, sold the Iraqi army an Artillery Meteorological System or Amets for short

---

quote:

---

On Sunday, Condoleezza Rice admitted that President Bush had used a forged document in his State of the Union speech to prove Iraq represented a nuclear threat: "We did not know at the time � maybe someone knew down in the bowels of the agency � but no one in our circles knew that there were doubts and suspicions that this might be a forgery. Of course it was information that was mistaken."

Robert Scheer, Los Angeles Times

---

quote:

---

President Bush said Monday he is "absolutely convinced" that the United States will find proof that Iraq had an illegal weapons program, but he stopped short of saying that actual biological or chemical agents will be uncovered.

Bush's comments were among the most forceful he has made on the subject since the postwar search for banned weapons began to emerge as a troubling political issue for the White House.

But his remarks were also carefully calibrated, in contrast to categorical statements he and other senior administration officials made before the war asserting Iraq had illegal weapons.

"Iraq had a weapons program," Bush said Monday in a brief exchange with reporters at the White House. "Intelligence throughout the decade showed they had a weapons program. I am absolutely convinced, with time, we'll find out that they did have a weapons program."

The emphasis on the word "program" marks a subtle shift by the president, whose administration made Iraq's alleged stocks of banned weapons the centerpiece of its case for going to war against Saddam Hussein.

---

quote:

---

Before the war, Bush was often unequivocal in alleging that Iraq possessed banned weapons.

In a key speech in Cincinnati on October 7, Bush said that Iraq "possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons" and suggested it was perilous for the United States to delay disarming Baghdad.

"If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today � and we do � does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?" the president had said.

Greg Miller, Los Angeles Times

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Veers:
"The Lusitania" and the "Ethnic Cleansing in Kosovo" reasons seem like legitimate reasons for a war.

---

quote:

---

Both introduced this year. By Democrats, even! And I'm all "The heck?" Because, you know, Caeserlike extensions of power are supposed to be part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy this time around.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Omega:
3) the weapons are still intact somewhere else, like Syria for example.

Such is my chain of reasoning at this point.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Veers:
First of Two: I am interested in your PERSONAL OPINION on the hunt for WMD. None have been found, yet you claim Bush was not lying. So...where do you think they are, or what do you think was done to them, or why do you think they have not been found?

Please, back up your opinions and do not resort to bringing up past instances of lying/deceit.

---

If I could back up my opinions with solid data, they wouldn't be opinions, they'd be facts.

I should point out that "None have been found, yet you claim Bush was not lying." is indicative of the "either-or" thought proccess that certain of us have chided in Omega re: evoluton.

Even IF no WMD are ever found, in the unlikely even that they were not there to be found in the first place, it is possible, for example, that Bush was provided with false or misleading intelligence regarding the weapons. If you are working from false data given to you by trusted sources, you cannot legitimately be said to be "lying" about it.

(To use an analogy, if you took an action, such as writing a petition or sending money to a person or organization, based upon a story told to you by a trusted person - mom or dad, or whomever you trust - and that story later turned out to be inaccurate, false, or an urban legend, would YOU deserve the blame for acting on information you believed to be true at the time?)

This would not be the first time a national leader was provided with inaccurate data by his sources. Nor would it be the first time that the US entered into a conflict because of said data.

(Personal Opinion: Possible, but doubtful)

Or they just haven't found them in the place where they are yet, which is my opinion.

My opinion is that the Iraqis used the 14-month run-up period (beginning at the moment that they understood that this administration was serious about making sure Iraq was disarmed - which was fairly early on) to war to hide whatever they could that they hadn't already managed to hide from the 1991-1998 inspector cycle. Remember, the Iraqis successfully hid their nuclear program from Hans Blix's team IAEA of inspectors in the years leading up to 1991, (Washington Post, Aug 6, 1991) and that the UN agencies left Iraq in 1998 with a general consensus that the Iraqis had not been forthcoming with their information and that they had discovered only a fraction of what the Iraqis were hiding.

I should note also, at this point, that the arguments that Iraq's chemical weapons would have exceeded their 'shelf life' is untenable for several reasons: Anthrax, for example, has a rather extended lifespan. IIRC, Guinard Island, which during WWII was test-infected with anthrax, was declared uninhabitable for 48 years, (and even after the 'cleanup,' some claim spores remain and could be infectious. Additionally, the argument depends on the certainty that no "seed stocks" remain (an unlikely 'certainty,' since the 1998 inspectors believed that they had not found all the stocks.)

I should also note that I have not heard a great deal about Iraq's underground complexes. Apparently, there are a number of them which have not been fully explored yet. Saddam Hussein's bodyguard, when debriefed by Israeli intelligence, is said to have claimed that weapons were stored in these bunkers. (If I were running things, these people who claimed to have knowledge of weapons locations would be made to lead us to them personally - at the end of long chains.)

Since I have seen no checklist of sites checked (or how thorough such checking was - I wouldn't be surprised if some folks were counting as "inspected" any site on which a US soldier set foot), I cannot tell whether these sites have been checked yet.

For those of you who might want to check this out for yourself, the claims of Abu Hamdi Mahmoud include:

Saddam has maintained an underground chemical weapons facility at the southern end of the Jadray Peninsula in Baghdad;

an assembly area near Ramadi for SCUD missiles imported from North Korea; and

two underground bunkers in Iraq's Western Desert that contain biological weapons;

and other weapons of mass destruction are concealed in a tunnel complex built by Chinese engineers beneath Baghdad's sewer system.

an underground complex in Ouja, to the north of Tikrit. The complex was built five years ago with help from Chinese engineers. The entrance to the site is through a house in Tikrit. It is the home of one of Saddam's cousins and is more than half a mile from where the weapons are stored."

Now as someone who lives in Southwestern PA, a place which is honeycombed by endless miles of underground tunnels (we mine coal here), I can't even begin to imagine how long searching through them would take. Especially if you didn't know where the entrances were. Especially if those entrances were deliberately concealed. Or destroyed, during evacuation of personnel.

Are they there, somewhere? I think so. I have been given no good reason yet to doubt the thesis.

Can I prove it? Fuck, if I could, would I be wasting time here talking to you bozos?

Ask me me again if, after all 1600+ suspected sites are visited, and every lead from every informant has been run into the ground, there still hasn't been anything found.

We will see.
 

---

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
 
If Saddam had WMD's, why would he hide them and not use them during the invasion to oust him from power?

Wasn't he, after all, such an immediate threat to the security of the United States that he had to be preempted before he could use them on us?
 

---

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
 
Simplest two explanations:

1. He had hidden them too deep and over too long a period of time to be able to retrieve them in the very short time between the cessation of political maneuvering and the onset of military maneuvering. I suspect that Hussein did not actually believe that the US would attack him when it did. Given that a great number of pundits agreed with him, it's not an unfair assumption. Many believed that if the opposition to the war could delay military action beyond a certain day (the new moon in March, I think it was), then it would not happen at all, at least not until the hot season was on the way out.

2. He had some intention of surviving the war intact.
This second belief is based upon US weapons policy, basely stated as: "Use conventional weapons on us, and we'll do the same. Use WMD, and we'll nuke you 'till you glow." It's also based on the common knowledge that Saddam Hussein likes to be alive. Saddam cares more for his own skin than to commit suicide intentionally. Without using WMD, he at least stands some chance of surviving and living to "fight another day" even if captured and imprisoned. (Napoleon did it, among others) Using WMD, he'd be as good as dead.

Take your pick, although there are other, less conventional and less convincing explanations.
 

---

Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
 
I heard on the news, I can't remember whether it was yesterday or the day before, but CNN said that there was an investigation as to whether the reports the US government used to justify the invasion of Iraq were faked. I don't know if that's already been posted, and i'm not gonna look through 7 odd pages of posts to find out.

Personally I don't think Bush was justified in invading Iraq. I was not convinced that Iraq even had WMD's before the inspectors went in, last year. I think it was last year eh? Sometimes events like that seem like they happened no too long ago, but then it turns out it happened a long time ago.
 

---

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
 

quote:

---

Wasn't he, after all, such an immediate threat to the security of the United States that he had to be preempted before he could use them on us?

---

For the umpteenth time, no.

He had to be preempted before he could pass them down the pipeline to Al-Qaeda, the Arab Liberation Front, the 15 May Organization, the Palestine Liberation Front, the Abu Nidal Organization, or the Mujahedin-e Khalq.
 

---

Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
 
All right, thank you for doing that, Fo2. Now we've got your side, and you've got ours (me and whoever else believes Bush misled us, etc.). This can now be called a somewhat-intelligent debate (A very common adjective to describe Flare "debates"... )
 

---

Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
 
Here's my side:

The only true threat from a country that has WMDs is up north in Canada. Let's see now, we've got chemical weapons in the form of legalized reefer madness, biological weapons such as Canadian Bacon, cheese, oh, and don't forget germ warfare, like SARS, mad cow disease, etc.

And we've got the Pickering Nuclear Generation facility. I won't get into too much detail about THAT travesty, but we do have a lot of Uranium up here to mine.....

So you see that we're a dangerous country. If your intelligence can be trusted, we're the logical next target.

All for the sake of saving the world from weapons of mass destruction. A preemptive strike must occur with the coalition of the willing. The line must be drawn here, this far and no further!!!

And you get our vast oil resources to boot.
 

---

Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
 

quote:

---

He had to be preempted before he could pass them down the pipeline to Al-Qaeda,

---

quote:

---

Convenient how you cut out every other terrorist organization listed...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ritten:

If weapons are found how many of you are going to say it was a US plant, and not believe anything but what you want anyway?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TSN:

"...it only measures a meter, by half a meter, by half a meter, or, a half meter cube."

That would be a quarter of a cubic meter, actually.

---

But still more than nough to kill LOTS of people.
 

---

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
 
Yes, quite right, my thinking and my typing don't seem to be getting along all that well these days...

Math aside for the moment, the idea is the same....
 

---

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
 
Americans and metric figures do not mix.

And in any case, I think we can assume that if he did have WMDs, he probably had more than a quarter metre squared of them.
 

---

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
I'm an American and I absolutely dispise the Brittish Engineering system of measurement, thank you very much.
 

---

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 
But you can't even spell "British", regardless of multiple corrections and mockings, so what does it matter?
 

---

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
 
About as much as finding those weapons really...
 

---

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
 
"British" and "despise".

Yay for the obvious benefits homeschooling brings!

[ June 16, 2003, 06:53 AM: Message edited by: PsyLiam ]
 

---

Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
 
Well, those typos were preceded by "I'm an American", so let's cut him some slack, eh? 8)

[ June 16, 2003, 05:30 AM: Message edited by: Cartmaniac ]
 

---

Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
 
On another note, why has a congressional investigation into why no WMD have been found not been launched? Surely, if Bush and Co. were not lying, the congressional investigation would say this. It would show we were not deceived, if that is the case, and Bush would not be harmed by it. But the Republicans are doing everything they can to block this inquiry. Why? Just because "two months is too soon to find any WMD?"
 

---

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
That and Congress has better things to do with its time. Like worry about judicial nominations and such.
 

---

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
 
The Congressional Republicand aren't interested because the majority of them support the President and believe he's right.

The Congressional Democrats aren't interested because many of them openly supported the 'use of force' resolutions, especially the ones who sat on the Intelligence committees, and calling the President a liar casts serious doubts on their judgement as well.

Plus, of course, if they start throwing accusation, and really get into it, and then WMD's ARE found, pop! goes their careers. They'd be throwing the Republicans the Congress for the next decade or more.

No, their hope is to try to win despite the war, not because of it.

Their big gap is that people just don't think the Democrats are as concerned with national security as the Republicans are. After 9-11, it's going to be seen as better to err on the side of domestic security than not.
 

---

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
 
I believe the Congressional investigation already nixed by the Republicans, not for political reasons I'm sure, was about the use and or misuse of intelligence information and not about if there actually are WMDs or not.

The use of forged information in the State of the Union and the hyped up scare tatics about potential Iraqi WMDs combine well with the fact that intelligence officers are now saying information was selectivly chosen by Mr. Bush to fit his purpose.

As long as the Republicans are in control of the Congress we will not see a real investigation into the matter because that would damage the reelection chances of Mr. Bush.
 

---

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
 

quote:

---

Their big gap is that people just don't think the Democrats are as concerned with national security as the Republicans are. After 9-11, it's going to be seen as better to err on the side of domestic security than not.

---

quote:

---

Last Thursday a House subcommittee met to finalize next year's homeland security appropriation. The ranking Democrat announced that he would introduce an amendment adding roughly $1 billion for areas like port security and border security that, according to just about every expert, have been severely neglected since Sept. 11. He proposed to pay for the additions by slightly scaling back tax cuts for people making more than $1 million per year.

The subcommittee's chairman promptly closed the meeting to the public, citing national security � though no classified material was under discussion. And the bill that emerged from the closed meeting did not contain the extra funding.

It was a perfect symbol of the reality of the Bush administration's "war on terror." Behind the rhetoric � and behind the veil of secrecy, invoked in the name of national security but actually used to prevent public scrutiny � lies a pattern of neglect, of refusal to take crucial actions to protect us from terrorists. Actual counterterrorism, it seems, doesn't fit the administration's agenda.

Yesterday The Washington Post printed an interview with Rand Beers, a top White House counterterrorism adviser who resigned in March. "They're making us less secure, not more secure," he said of the Bush administration. "As an insider, I saw the things that weren't being done." Among the problem areas he cited were homeland security, where he says the administration has "only a rhetorical policy"; failure to press Saudi Arabia (the home of most of the Sept. 11 terrorists) to take action; and, of course, the way we allowed Afghanistan to relapse into chaos.

Some of this pattern of neglect involves penny-pinching. Back in February, even George W. Bush in effect admitted that not enough money had been allocated to domestic security � though (to the fury of Republican legislators) he blamed Congress. Yet according to Fred Kaplan in Slate, the administration's latest budget proposal for homeland security actually contains less money than was spent last year. Meanwhile, urgent priorities remain unmet. For example, port security, identified as a top concern from the very beginning, has so far received only one-tenth as much money as the Coast Guard says is needed.

Paul Krugman, The New York Times

---

quote:

---

Last year, Congress appropriated millions to enhance airport security, FBI counter-terrorism technology and protection of the food and water supply. But in August, President Bush froze the bulk of these funds, stressing the need for "fiscal restraint." Obviously, cutting taxes cuts revenue.

A HIRING FREEZE, TOO

The National Nuclear Security Administration, the agency that protects our nuclear stockpile and weapons laboratories, has had a shortage of security guards. Yet the agency was forced to announce a hiring freeze last November because of budget constraints.

The administration identified 123 chemical plants where a terror attack could kill thousands of people, but it accepted a weak bill that leaves responsibility for security with private industry (repeating the mistake we thought we had learned from Sept. 11) and provides little funding for enforcement.

The White House has rebuffed efforts of House Appropriations Committee Chairman Bill Young, R-Fla., and other congressional leaders to meet the needs of police, firefighters and other "first responders"; in the current budget cycle, the administration opposes a $5-billion grant program crafted by Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and attempted to eliminate $900 million in law-enforcement grants sought by House Republicans.

PROTECT OUR PORTS

Security for our ports is an urgent priority. The Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 mandates extensive improvements but provides no money to meet the need, a deliberate omission repeated in Bush's 2003 budget. The 2002 maritime act also mandates vulnerability assessments at the nation's 55 largest ports, but at the current pace, slowed by lack of funds, the assessments won't be completed until 2009.

Efforts to upgrade facilities at the Centers for Disease Control lag badly. Though he often refers to the catastrophic dangers of bioterrorism, Bush has sought no increase in funding for the CDC. His 2003 budget actually cuts overall funding for the CDC and trims more than $10 million from its crucial Center for Infectious Diseases. The funding squeeze stymied CDC plans for an urgently needed emergency-operations center. The center was finally completed last month, only because a private donor contributed $4 million for the project.

Stephen J. Schulhofer, The Miami Herald

---

quote:

---

Democrats said they were particularly concerned about the report released on Monday by Glenn A. Fine, the Justice Department's inspector general. The report found "significant problems" in the way the authorities arrested and treated hundreds of illegal immigrants as part of the Sept. 11 investigation. The report found that the authorities had made little effort to distinguish real terrorist suspects from those who became ensnared by chance in the investigation. Many suspects were jailed for months, often without being formally charged or given access to lawyers, and some inmates in Brooklyn were physically and verbally abused before they were cleared of any terrorist ties, the report said.

Eric Lichtblau, The New York Times

---

quote:

---

Ms Short is claiming that the prime minister was so convinced that it was right to take action against Saddam Hussein that he was prepared to, at best, bend the truth to get his way.

And if the foreign affairs committee - once it has interviewed a host more people including foreign secretary Jack Straw twice - agrees that this was indeed the case then, make no mistake, Tony Blair will have to resign.


It is unthinkable that a prime minister could remain in office after being judged by a Commons committee to have deliberately misled the Commons and the country over war - honourably or otherwise

---

quote:

---

But the evidence given by former Commons leader Robin Cook - who quit in protest at the war - was potentially just as deadly.

He also insisted that, during his time in government, it was evident Saddam Hussein did not present the sort of imminent threat claimed by President Bush and Tony Blair when urging military action against him.

---

quote:

---

And in Mr Blair's defence, given that the two ministers ended their careers over this issue, there is bound to be an element of "they would say that wouldn't they" about all this.

But this was a serious and weighty examination of the facts as these two senior politicians genuinely see them.

---

quote:

---

Tony Blair and his spin doctor Alastair Campbell, who are accused of being the major culprits, have refused to give evidence to the committee.

Mr Blair is instead relying on a separate, private inquiry by parliament's intelligence committee - which is appointed bay and reports directly to him.

He remains absolutely confident he will be vindicated

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cartmaniac:
How can he be vindicated when it has been proven that Saddam (a) did NOT pose an IMMEDIATE THREAT to the
U! S! A! & (b) did NOT have stockpiles of nuclear and chemical weapons ready for deployment, the pretext under which the war was launched?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Phoenix:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cartmaniac:
How can he be vindicated when it has been proven that Saddam (a) did NOT pose an IMMEDIATE THREAT to the
U! S! A! & (b) did NOT have stockpiles of nuclear and chemical weapons ready for deployment, the pretext under which the war was launched?

---

I don't see how either of those things has been "proven".

---

quote:

---

But that's irrelevant really. The accusation is that he misled parliament. If he had sufficient evidence that Iraq had WMDs, then he could be vindicated even if the evidence he had turns out to be false. After all, it's not his fault if he's given faulty evidence.

---

quote:

---

Not that I believe him, as I think he's a lying arrogant egomaniac, but I still don't think anything has been proven just yet.

---

quote:

---

After all, it's not his fault if he's given faulty evidence.

---

quote:

---

It'd be completely out of character.

---

quote:

---

Unless we could inspect every single usable container being removed from Iraq over the last couple years, you can't say that and expect the pronouncement to be taken seriously.

---

quote:

---

You're assuming movement by land. Iraq also has a coastline and airports, no? You're also assuming that the weapons would have been handed over to another government. If I were Hussein, I'd be more likely to pull a Bin Laden and set up my own mobile terrorist network. He could theoretically hit the US, and he's a much harder target to hit back if nobody's even sure he's alive. But again, just a thought.

---

quote:

---

Yes, but the war was based on the assumption that Iraq was hiding its program from UN weapons inspectors. Repeating that adds nothing.

---

quote:

---

But the Bushies kept insisting that the stuff was there, so they are either liars or stupid.

Or their information was bad. You just said that that was also possible. Make up your mind.

---

quote:

---

Frankly, Bush has thus far appeared to be a Christian, and I mean in the way he lives, not just in that he goes to church every so often. That earns him the benefit of the doubt in my book.

---

quote:

---

Also Iraq was under no idea that it was going to be attacked until the spring before last, so time restraints on getting this stuff out were very short.

Come on. I was seven when the gulf war ended, and even then I knew there'd be another one eventually. Saddam certainly knew the same thing. (Especially, going back to my pet whacko theory, if he specifically planted the information to start this war.)

---

quote:

---

The president said some al Qaeda leaders had fled Afghanistan to Iraq and referred to one "very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year." It was a reference to Abu Mussab Zarqawi, a Jordanian. U.S. intelligence already had concluded that Zarqawi was not an al Qaeda member but the leader of an unaffiliated terrorist group who occasionally associated with al Qaeda adherents, the sources said.

---

quote:

---

Funny a 7 y/o could figure out that he would have disarmed himself by now and therefore would not have the weapons capabilities, that would require another invasion, but the Bushies could not.

---

quote:

---

Getting to the bottom of this issue matters, finally, for the centrepiece of Mr Bush's foreign policy - the doctrine of pre-emption. This doctrine rests on knowing the intentions and capabilities of those the US might pre-empt. But if it turns out that the intelligence on Iraq was flawed - or, worse, deliberately exaggerated - America's ability to pre-empt future, and perhaps graver, threats will be harmed. Given the political storm that has buffeted Tony Blair, a future British prime minister will think twice about joining the US in another pre-emptive strike. And once serious doubts about the credibility of what America's leaders say about new threats are raised, the American public may not want to go along either.

We must get to the bottom of why US intelligence was so far off the mark on Iraq's WMD stocks. Congress may hold hearings but its work will inevitably be compromised by partisan squabbling. The president would do himself and the country a favour if he pre-empted Congress by appointing an independent commission of people with unquestioned integrity to review the intelligence. Modelled perhaps on the Tower commission that President Ronald Reagan appointed after the Iran-Contra scandal, the commission would determine what we knew and when we knew it. And it would recommend how to gather, analyse and disseminate intelligence in ways that reassure rather than mislead.

What happened to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction - whether they were hidden, given to others, or destroyed - is too important a question to be left to the vagaries of partisan politics. It must be answered soon, by those with the credibility to resolve the matter once and for all.

Ivo Daalder and James Lindsay, The Financial Times

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Veers:
No, it is not complex. We cannot destroy vast quantities of deadly chemical and biological weapons, and then have no trace of them ever being there. It's not feasible. Surely, by now, we would've found some trace of these weapons if we had bombed them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Omega:
Okay, so they either still exist in Iraq, they still exist outside Iraq, or they were destroyed by Sadaam who didn't prove their destruction just because he was... what, feeling suicidal? We KNOW those materials existed. Whether they still existed as of the time we started the war, I don't know, but he did have chemical materials that he never accounted for destroying.

---

quote:

---

or... maybe they never existed at all!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grokca:

quote:

---

or... maybe they never existed at all!

---

That's impossible, Bush said they were there and he would never lie.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grokca:
Perhaps Blix, has the best understanding of where these are.

Blix's statement

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Veers:
Here comes a bit o'research:

Quotes, from Bush:
"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."
Radio Adress, October 2002/.

--Huh? Where are these? Shouldn't they be there, ready to be launched?.

---

quote:

---

"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons." "We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas." "We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."
October, 2002.

--Wow, thousands of tons...that's millions of pounds. Where are they? Where are those UAVs, capable of hitting targets in the US?

---

quote:

---

"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" - his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."
Cincinnati, Ohio Speech. October, 2002.

--False! The CIA advised him not to mention the uranium thing, but....

---

quote:

---

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent." State of the Union Address, January, 2003.

--"Had the materials"...Desert Fox, people, Desert Fox... Or, if not, then where are those materials?

---

quote:

---

Iraq has developed spray devices that could be used on unmanned aerial vehicles with ranges far beyond what is permitted by the Security Council. A UAV launched from a vessel off the American coast could reach hundreds of miles inland.

---

quote:

---

We FOUND a UAV, if you recall.

---

quote:

---

WASHINGTON � A top State Department expert on chemical and biological weapons told Congressional committees in closed-door hearings last week that he had been pressed to tailor his analysis on Iraq and other matters to conform with the Bush administration's views, several Congressional officials said today.

The officials described what they said was a dramatic moment at a House Intelligence Committee hearing last week when the weapons expert came forward to tell Congress he had felt such pressure.

By speaking out, they said, the senior intelligence expert, identified by several officials as Christian Westermann, became the first member of the intelligence community on active service to make this sort of admission to members of Congress.

The House Intelligence Committee was examining questions concerning the Bush administration's handling of prewar reports on evidence that Iraq had illegal weapons and ties to terrorist groups.

Mr. Westermann, officials said, is an analyst in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, a small but important office at the State Department that is intended to provide the secretary of state with intelligence analysis independent of the C.I.A. and other agencies.

Mr. Westermann told lawmakers last week that while he felt pressure, he never actually changed the wording of any of his intelligence reports.

James Risen and Douglas Jehl, The New York Times

---

quote:

---

Tony Blair's press chief Alastair Campbell has told MPs he regrets the problems with the "dodgy dossier" about Iraq's illegal weapons.

But he denied claims that he had "sexed up" an earlier and more important dossier about Iraq's weapons and demanded the BBC apologise for what he called a "lie".

---

quote:

---

He said plagiarising part of an academic thesis was "a mistake", but set that within the context of many documents being sent to a "round-the-clock, round-the-world" media. Foreign Secretary Jack Straw had increased the pressure on Mr Campbell on Tuesday when he told the committee that the February document an "embarrassment" for the government.

---

quote:

---

Tony Blair's press chief Alastair Campbell has told MPs he regrets the problems with the "dodgy dossier" about Iraq's illegal weapons.

But he denied claims that he had "sexed up" an earlier and more important dossier about Iraq's weapons and demanded the BBC apologise for what he called a "lie".

The Downing Street communications director is being grilled by MPs on the Commons foreign affairs committee investigating whether the UK Government exaggerated the case for invading Iraq.

Mr Campbell commissioned February's "dodgy dossier" which copied material from an academic thesis about Iraq.

He said plagiarising part of an academic thesis was "a mistake", but set that within the context of many documents being sent to a "round-the-clock, round-the-world" media.

Are we really so cynical that we think any prime minister, is going to make prior decisions to send British forces into conflict and wouldn't rather avoid doing that

Alastair Campbell


BBC rejects apology demand

Foreign Secretary Jack Straw had increased the pressure on Mr Campbell on Tuesday when he told the committee that the February document an "embarrassment" for the government.

Mr Campbell said the government apologised to the Californian student Ibrahim al-Marashi whose thesis was plagiarised for the document.

Committee chairman Donald Anderson opened Wednesday's hearing by saying Mr Campbell was accused of embellishing the evidence in a way that misled the House of Commons and the public in his "zeal" to make the case for war.

The key mistake

Mr Campbell said staff in the government's Communications Information Centre (CIC) had drafted the February dossier as a briefing paper for journalists.

It was designed to show new intelligence about how Iraq was hiding weapons of mass destruction.

The "mistake" during the drafting process was that they had taken parts of the academic thesis from a Middle Eastern journal and failed to attribute it.
This error was not realised by others working on the document, who had altered parts of Dr al-Marashi's work thinking they were making the government's own work more accurate, said Mr Campbell.

---

quote:

---

Conservative MP Sir John Stanley said the way Mr Blair had presented the document to the Commons made MPs wrongly think it had the "seal of approval" from intelligence chiefs.

He suggested the inadequate way Mr Campbell had briefed the prime minister had caused him to mislead Parliament.

---

quote:

---

Mr Campbell said he was prepared for the MPs to see all the drafts of the September dossier if the chairman of the joint intelligence committee approved that move.

Mr Campbell denied former cabinet minister Clare Short's claim that Mr Blair had agreed with US President George Bush last September to attack Iraq in February.

Instead, the prime minister had worked "flat out" for agreement at the United Nations as a way of avoiding conflict, said Mr Campbell.

It was wrong to think the government had "glibly" decided to go to war and then tried to "sex up" the dossier to win public backing.

"I know scepticism is fine ... but are we really so cynical that we think the prime minister, any prime minister, is going to make prior decisions to send British forces into conflict and wouldn't rather avoid doing that?"

---

quote:

---

Mr. Westermann told lawmakers last week that while he felt pressure, he never actually changed the wording of any of his intelligence reports.

---

quote:

---

Yesterday, the committee's chairman gave a vote of confidence to US intelligence efforts, specifically in the search for Iraq's weapons, ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, and Osama bin Laden, leader of the Islamist militant group accused in the September 11, 2001, terror attacks in the United States.

"The critical question is, do we have the capacity to find out and are we doing it, and the answer is, yes," Representative Porter Goss of Florida, himself a former Central Intelligence Agency operative, said.

"There is no question that lethal weapons in the hands of mischief makers have been proven to be a problem.

"Be patient and understand that we have people working very hard on this."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Veers:
Jay: They will probably dismiss the report as lies, since it comes from the New York Times.

---

quote:

---

And we all know that if one or two writers fakes some of their articles, then the whole paper is a tissue of lies, and it is never to be believed EVER AGAIN.

---

quote:

---

If not, then they'll say the State Department guy is a liar.
Or, they'll just blame it on Clinton.

---

quote:

---

He did not immediately provide lawmakers with details about his complaints, and it remains uncertain the degree to which his concerns related to Iraq or other regional issues.

Administration officials said his most specific complaints concerned issues related to intelligence on Cuba, and he has not yet provided similar specific complaints about the handling of intelligence on Iraq

---

This isn't even ABOUT Iraq! It's about this guy disagreeing with Bolton about CUBA!

Never expected me to actually have a subscription to the NYT, didja?

Gee, Jay. Talk about presenting misleading evidence to bolster your attack...

Jay caught misleading Flareites! First of Two calls for impeachment! Film at 11!
 

---

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
 
Incidentally...

Just a little boom!

quote:

---

CNN) -- The CIA has in its hands the critical parts of a key piece of Iraqi nuclear technology -- parts needed to develop a bomb program -- that were dug up in a back yard in Baghdad, CNN has learned.

The parts were unearthed by Iraqi scientist Mahdi Obeidi who had hidden them under a rose bush in his garden 12 years ago under orders from Qusay Hussein and Saddam Hussein's then son-in-law, Hussein Kamel.

U.S. officials emphasized this was not evidence Iraq had a nuclear weapon -- but it was evidence the Iraqis concealed plans to reconstitute their nuclear program as soon as the world was no longer looking.

The parts and documents Obeidi gave the CIA were shown exclusively to CNN at CIA headquarters in Virginia.

Obeidi told CNN the parts of a gas centrifuge system for enriching uranium were part of a highly sophisticated system he was ordered to hide to be ready to rebuild the bomb program.

"I have very important things at my disposal that I have been ordered to have, to keep, and I've kept them, and I don't want this to proliferate, because of its potential consequences if it falls in the hands of tyrants, in the hands of dictators or of terrorists," said Obeidi, who has been taken out of Iraq with the help of the U.S. government.

Obeidi also said he wasn't the only scientist ordered to hide that type of equipment.

"I think there may be more than three other copies. And I think it is quite important to look at this list so they will not fall into the hands of the wrong people," he said.

Centrifuges are drums or cylinders that spin at high speed and separate heavy and light molecules, allowing increasingly enriched uranium to be drawn off.

David Kay, who led three U.N. arms inspection missions in Iraq in 1991-92 and now heads the CIA's search for unconventional weapons, started work two days ago in Baghdad. CNN spoke to him about the case over a secure teleconferencing line.

"It begins to tell us how huge our job is," Kay said. "Remember, his material was buried in a barrel behind his house in a rose garden.

"There's no way that that would have been discovered by normal international inspections. I couldn't have done it. My successors couldn't have done it."

CNN had this story last week but made a decision to withhold it at the request of the U.S. government, which cited safety and national security concerns.

---

quote:

---

We missed out on such gems as:

---

quote:

---

Gee, Jay. Talk about presenting misleading evidence to bolster your attack...

Jay caught misleading Flareites! First of Two calls for impeachment! Film at 11!

---

quote:

---

In a second hearing last week with the Senate Intelligence Committee, he made it clear that he had felt pressure from John Bolton, the under secretary of state for arms control and international security, that originally dated to a clash the two had over Mr. Bolton's public assertions last year that Cuba had a biological weapons program. Mr. Westermann argued those assertions were not supported by sufficient intelligence.

---

quote:

---

...had been pressed to tailor his analysis on Iraq and other matters to conform with the Bush administration's views...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Veers:

This is not the equivalent of a "smoking gun" (No one said it was, but I am just pointing it out).

---

quote:

---

It proves Iraq was concealing equipment

---

quote:

---

Actually, that's a pretty flimsy argument.

---

quote:

---

the fact it hasn't been used for over a dozen years proves he did not have a nuclear program since that time.

---

quote:

---

The more significant discoveries were related to Saddam�s attempts to rebuild chemical and biological arsenals like those he was known to have used during the Iran-Iraq War of the late 1980s, when he was supported by the U.S. government.

Sources told NBC News� Jim Miklaszewski that within just the past week, U.S. investigators had found two shipping containers filled with millions of much more recent documents relating to chemical and biological weapons.

One of the documents, from 2001, was titled �Document burial and U.N. activities in Iraq,� the sources said. It gave detailed instructions on how to hide materials and deceive U.N. weapons inspectors, the sources said.
Other documents related to the concealment of VX nerve gas, the sources said.

The sources said U.S. troops also discovered about 300 sacks of castor beans, which are used to make the deadly biological agent ricin, hidden in a warehouse in the town of al-Aziziyah, 50 miles southeast of Baghdad, the capital. The castor beans were inaccurately labeled as fertilizer.

U.S. search teams have also been led to a site near Nasiriyah, a key Euphrates River crossing 200 miles south of Baghdad, where Iraqi informants said Scud missiles were buried.

---

quote:

---

WASHINGTON � There was a time when conservatives fought passionately to preserve America as a limited constitutional republic. That was, in fact, the essence of conservatism. It's one reason Franklin Roosevelt's vast expansion of government through the New Deal aroused such bitter opposition on the right.

But many conservative activists seem to have lost that philosophical commitment. They now advocate autocratic executive rule, largely unconstrained by constitutional procedures or popular opinions.

This curious attitude is evident in the conservative response to the gnawing question: Where are Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction? A surprising number of conservatives respond: So what? He must have had them; maybe he gave them away. And, anyway, Hussein was a bad guy. In their view, even to ask the question is to mount a partisan attack on President Bush, and that's downright unpatriotic.It always seemed likely that Baghdad possessed WMD. Not only did Iraq once maintain a WMD program, but how else to explain the regime's obstructionist behavior during the inspections process?

Yet it made equal sense to assume that a desperate Hussein would use any WMD to defend his regime - and that serious elements of Baghdad's arsenal would be quickly found.

There may be a logical explanation for the fact that WMD were not used and have not been located; significant WMD stockpiles might eventually turn up.

Moreover, it's hard to imagine the administration simply concocting its WMD claims. The president, though a practiced politician, isn't the type to lie so blatantly. Whatever the faults of his lieutenants, none seems likely to advance a falsehood that would be so hard to maintain.

But the longer we go without any discoveries, the more questionable the prewar claims appear to have been. The allies have checked all of the sites originally targeted for inspection, arrested leading Baath Party members, and offered substantial rewards for information. Even in Hussein's centralized regime, more than a few people must have known where any WMD stocks were hidden or transferred and would be able to help now.

Which means it is entirely fair to ask the administration, where are the WMD? The answer matters for the simplest practical reasons. Possible intelligence failures need to be corrected. Washington's loss of credibility should be addressed; saying "trust me" will be much harder for this president in the future or a future president.

Stonewalling poses an even greater threat to our principles of government. It matters whether the president lied to the American people. Political fibs are common, not just about with whom presidents have had sex, but also to advance foreign-policy goals. Remember the Tonkin Gulf incident, inaccurate claims of Iraqi troop movements against Saudi Arabia before the first Gulf war, and repetition of false atrocity claims from ethnic Albanian guerrillas during the Kosovo war.

Perhaps the administration manipulated the evidence, choosing information that backed its view, turning assumptions into certainties, and hyping equivocal materials. That, too, would hardly be unusual. But no president should take the US into war under false pretenses. There is no more important decision: The American people deserve to hear official doubts as well as certitudes.

The point is not that the administration is necessarily guilty of misbehavior, but that it should be forced to defend its decisionmaking process.

Pointing to substitute justifications for the war just won't do. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz notes that the alleged Al Qaeda connection divided the administration internally, and humanitarian concerns did not warrant risking American lives. Only fear over Iraqi possession of WMD unified the administration, won the support of allies, particularly Britain, and served as the centerpiece of the administration's case. If the WMD didn't exist, or were ineffective, Washington's professed case for war collapses.

Conservatives' lack of interest in the WMD question takes an even more ominous turn when combined with general support for presidential warmaking. Republicans - think President Eisenhower, for instance - once took seriously the requirement that Congress declare war. These days, however, Republican presidents and legislators, backed by conservative intellectuals, routinely argue that the chief executive can unilaterally take America into war.

Thus, in their view, once someone is elected president, he or she faces no legal or political constraint. The president doesn't need congressional authority; Washington doesn't need UN authority. Allied support is irrelevant. The president needn't offer the public a justification for going to war that holds up after the conflict ends. The president may not even be questioned about the legitimacy of his professed justification. Accept his word and let him do whatever he wants, irrespective of circumstances.

This is not the government created by the Founders. This is not the government that any believer in liberty should favor.

It is foolish to turn the Iraq war, a prudential political question, into a philosophical test for conservatism. It is even worse to demand unthinking support for Bush. He should be pressed on the issue of WMD - by conservatives. Fidelity to the Constitution and republican government demands no less.

Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. He served as a special assistant to President Ronald Reagan.

Doug Bandow, The Christian Science Monitor

---

 

---

Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
 
Well, that'll bring the errant Farquad back. Failing that, you might have to draw a pentangle and chant "I summon thee" three times. 8)
 

---

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
 
This is interesting...

The CIA says that it was known to be false in March 2002. Bush & co. countered that by saying it may never have reached the president.
That would mean when they decided to use it for the State of the Union, they never decided to check to see if it was true, never consulted the CIA, and just went ahead and used it.
My God, if they didn't deliberately mislead us, then we have some horrible staff in Washington!Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld, GEORGE TENET...none of them bothered to tell him the uranium story was false.
 

---

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
 
Some good, some bad...

quote:

---

LONDON, England (CNN) -- British Prime Minister Tony Blair "misrepresented" the findings of intelligence information on Iraq's weapons program, but the government did not mislead the public ahead of the war, a parliamentary committee has found.

The committee on Monday cleared the government's communication director of any wrongdoing in the preparation of a dossier used to justify the UK joining the U.S.-led war against Iraq.

---

quote:

---

"We conclude that the claims made in the September dossier were in all probability well founded on the basis of the intelligence then available," the committee said.

But it said the dossier "was in places more assertive than that traditionally used in intelligence documents."

The government has acknowledged that the 45-minute reference came from a single source. However, it said that source was thought to be reliable.

As for the February dossier, the committee concluded that Blair, in comments to the House of Commons, "misrepresented its status and thus inadvertently made a bad situation worse."

"We conclude that the effect of the February dossier was almost wholly counterproductive. By producing such a document the government undermined the credibility of their case for war and of other documents which were part of it," the committee said.

Parts of the February dossier were taken from a student's thesis which had been posted on the Internet.

But the committee believed that "ministers did not mislead Parliament."

"We conclude that it appeared likely that there was only limited access to reliable human intelligence in Iraq and that as a consequence the United Kingdom may have been heavily reliant on U.S. technical intelligence, on the defectors and on exiles with an agenda of their own."

---

quote:

---

"We conclude that it is too soon to tell whether the government's assertions on Iraq's chemical and biological weapons will be borne out," the committee said.

"However, we have no doubt that the threat posed to United Kingdom forces was genuinely perceived as a real and present danger and that the steps taken to protect them were justified by the information available at the time."

---

quote:

---

Former House of Commons leader Robin Cook has accused Campbell of using the row with the BBC to draw attention away from the coalition's failure to find any weapons.

"He has managed to convince half the media that the Foreign Affairs inquiry is into the origins of his war with (the BBC) ... not in to the war with Iraq," Cook told The Guardian newspaper Monday.

"The serious allegation is that they got it wrong, and they should not be allowed to get off answering that issue because Alastair has souped up this controversy," said Cook, who quit the cabinet before the war began.

---

quote:

---

LONDON, July 9 � Britain on Wednesday defended its allegations that Saddam Hussein had sought uranium from Niger for a nuclear weapons programme, saying its evidence was separate from forged information used by Washington to make the same case.

---

quote:

---

''I don't know where the Americans got their information from. Our information comes from good, reliable sources -- not British sources, which is why we were never at liberty to pass anything to the Americans,'' a British official, who declined to be named, told Reuters.
He declined to say exactly who had provided the information used by Britain.
He said Britain continued to believe that intelligence pointing to Iraq's ''intent to obtain uranium from Africa...is valid and accurate.''

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lee:
This is a tough thing for the BBC to refute, since no honest journalist would ever reveal a source.

---

quote:

---

Aha! Very clever! You see what he did there? He implied that a BBC journalist is a political officer, which everyone knows is sort-of commie sounding and bad, a nasty tool of the government. This means that the source can be ignored. Never mind that in the very next paragraph he actually mentions that the BBC has a feud going with the government, which means that Marr can't very well be a political officer then, can he?

---

quote:

---

Although given the directions the BBC has taken lately, identification with a particular political ideology can be left to the beholder.

---

quote:

---

Although given the directions the BBC has taken lately, identification with a particular political ideology can be left to the beholder.

---

quote:

---

Yes, but it's a lot harder to prove lying in the trysts case... you're not going to find the equivalent of a stained dress here.

---

quote:

---

If you say a falsehood based on your possession of inaccurate information, it may be wrong, but it's not lying.

---

quote:

---

The intelligence officials offered a tantalizing coda for conspiracy-mongers. They said the "crude forgery" received by U.N. weapons inspectors suggesting the Iraqis were trying to buy uranium from Niger as part of their nuclear program was originally put in intelligence channels by France. The officials wouldn't speculate on French motives.

---

quote:

---

Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 15:44:20 -0800 (PST)
From: Doctor Clement Okon
To: [email protected]
Subject: YOUR OUR ONLY HOPE!!

From: Dr. Clement Okon
Plot 33 Nicholas Crescent, V/I.
Lagos-Nigeria.

DEAR SIR,

REQUEST FOR URGENT BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP

FIRST, YOU HAVE BEEN CONTACTED BECAUSE YOU HAVE CONSISTENTLY SHOWN THE ADMIRABLE QUALITIES OF DISCRETION AND SHREWD BUSINESS ACUMEN THIS UNDERTAKING WILL REQUIRE. WHICH IS TO SAY THAT I MUST SOLICIT YOUR STRICTEST CONFIDENCE IN THIS TRANSACTION. THIS IS BY VIRTUE OF ITS NATURE AS BEING UTTERLY CONFIDENTIAL AND 'TOP SECRET'. I AM SURE AND HAVE CONFIDENCE OF YOUR ABILITY AND RELIABILITY TO PROSECUTE A TRANSACTION OF THIS GREAT MAGNITUDE INVOLVING A PENDING TRANSACTION REQUIRING MAXIIMUM CONFIDENCE. MY NAME IS DR CLEMENT OKON AND I REPRESENT THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE FOR BUDGET AND PLANNING OF THE THE MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND MINERAL RESOURCES HERE IN LAGOS NIGERIA. THE RECENT DEATH OF OUR MILITARY DICTATOR GENERAL SANI ABACHA REQUIRES THAT WE PROCURE THIS TRANSACTION WITH GREAT HASTE BEFORE THE OPPORTUNITY PASSES.

WE ARE TOP OFFICIAL OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CONTRACT REVIEW PANEL WHO ARE INTERESTED IN THE EXPORTATION OF CERTAIN HIGHLY VALUABLE GOODS FROM OUR COUNTRY WHICH ARE PRESENTLY TRAPPED IN NIGERIA. IN ORDER TO COMMENCE THIS BUSINESS WE SOLICIT YOUR ASSISTANCE TO ENABLE US TRANSFER INTO YOUR STORE THE SAID TRAPPED COMMODITIES.

THE SOURCE OF THESE COMMODITIES IS AS FOLLOWS; DURING THE LAST MILITARY REGIME HERE IN NIGERIA, THE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS SET UP PROGRAMMES TO EXTRACT AND REFINE CERTAIN ORES WHICH WOULD THEN BE UTILIZED OR DISTRIBUTED BY THE VARIOUS MINISTRIES. THE PRESENT CIVILIAN GOVERNMENT SET UP A CONTRACT REVIEW PANEL AND WE HAVE IDENTIFIED A EXCESS OF CERTAIN HIGHLY VALUABLE COMMODITIES WHICH ARE PRESENTLY RESTING IN THE VAULTS OF THE CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA READY FOR EXPORTATION.

HOWEVER, BY VIRTUE OF OUR POSITION AS CIVIL SERVANTS AND CERTAIN INTERNATIONAL RESTRICTIONS, WE CANNOT EXPORT THESE COMMODITIES DIRECTLY TO OUR EAGER CUSTOMER (WHO ASKED THAT I NOT REVEAL HIS IDENTITY, BUT SUFFICE IT TO SAY HE IS A MAN WITH A GREAT DEAL OF INFLUENCE IN THE MIDDLE EASTERN REGION, THAT HE WEARS A THICK MOUSTACHE OFTEN WITH A BERET, AND THAT HIS NAME RHYMES WITH "RUB-ON DISDAIN"). I HAVE THEREFORE, BEEN DELEGATED AS A MATTER OF TRUST BY MY COLLEAGUES OF THE PANEL TO LOOK FOR AN OVERSEAS PARTNER WHO MIGHT IMPORT THESE 24,000 KG OF ENRICHED URANIUM ORE AND HOLD THIS CARGO FOR SOME MONTHS WHILE ARRANGEMENTS FOR OUR CUSTOMER'S IMPORT ARE MADE. A REWARD OF US$1,320,000.00 (ONE MILLION, THREE HUNDRED AND TWENTY THOUSAND U.S DOLLARS) HAS BEEN APPROVED BY MY PANEL FOR THE PERSON OR ENTITY PERFORMING THIS VALUABLE SERVICE FOR OUR TROUBLED COUNTRY. HENCE WE ARE WRITING YOU THIS LETTER. WE HAVE SELECTED YOU BECAUSE YOU HAVE REPEATEDLY PROVEN YOUR TRUSTWORTHINESS AND INTEGRITY, AND ALSO YOUR SYMPATHY TOWARDS OUR CONTINENT'S WAR-RAVAGED POPULOUS.

PLEASE,NOTE THAT THIS TRANSACTION IS 100% SAFE AND WE HOPE TO COMMENCE THE TRANSFER LATEST SEVEN (7) BANKING DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THE RECEIPT OF THE FOLLOWING INFORMATIOM BY TEL/FAX; 234-1-7740449, YOUR ORGANIZATION'S SIGNED, AND STAMPED LETTERHEAD PAPER THE ABOVE INFORMATION WILL ENABLE US WRITE LETTERS OF CLAIM AND JOB DESCRIPTION RESPECTIVELY. THIS WAY WE WILL USE YOUR ORGANIZATION'S NAME TO APPLY FOR PAYMENT AND RE-AWARD THE CONTRACT IN YOUR NAME.

WE ARE LOOKING FORWARD TO DOING THIS BUSINESS WITH YOU AND SOLICIT YOUR CONFIDENTIALITY IN THIS TRANSATION. PLEASE ACKNOWLEDGE THE RECEIPT OF THIS LETTER USING THE ABOVE TEL/FAX NUMBERS. I WILL SEND YOU DETAILED INFORMATION OF THIS PENDING PROJECT WHEN I HAVE HEARD FROM YOU.

YOURS FAITHFULLY,

DR CLEMENT OKON

NOTE; PLEASE QUOTE THIS REFERENCE NUMBER (VE/S/09/99) IN ALL YOUR RESPONSES.

---

quote:

---

Brits believe the claim to be correct, I'll pose one question: What happened to the fact that the US and the UK are the most close-knit intelligence sharers in the world? [/QB]

---

quote:

---

"We believe in the intelligence which was behind the claims made in the September 24 dossier, yes," he said on the Today current affairs program when asked if the intelligence on Niger was still valid in British eyes.


He added, however, that Britain was not at liberty to tell the United States where it got the information, because it had come from "foreign intelligence sources".


"It just happens to be the rules of liaison with foreign intelligence sources that they own the intelligence. The second intelligence service does not and therefore is not able to pass it on to the third party."


The Italian government on Sunday denied reports that its intelligence services handed the United States and Britain documents indicating that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger for a nuclear weapons programme.


The Financial Times reported Monday that Britain received information that Iraq was seeking to acquire uranium from Niger from two sources, thought to be France and Italy, which explained why it was included in the September dossier despite being told the US Central Intelligence Agency (news - web sites) (CIA (news - web sites)) had "reservations" about its inclusion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lee:
Hmm. Looks like Straw's pulling the old "I decline to answer on the grounds it might endanger our agents in the field" line.

---

quote:

---

Defending the broader decision to go to war with Iraq, the president said the decision was made after he gave Saddam Hussein "a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in."

----

The president's assertion that the war began because Iraq did not admit inspectors appeared to contradict the events leading up to war this spring: Hussein had, in fact, admitted the inspectors and Bush had opposed extending their work because he did not believe them effective.

In the face of persistent questioning about the use of intelligence before the Iraq war, administration officials have responded with evolving and sometimes contradictory statements. The matter has become increasingly charged, as Democrats demand hearings about Bush's broader use of intelligence to justify the Iraq war.


Dana Priest and Dana Milbank, Washington Post

---

quote:

---

The Buck Stops There
Bush shifts the blame for his Iraq whopper.

When George W. Bush ran for president, one of his big selling points was responsibility. Americans were tired of Bill Clinton's fudges and legalisms. They were tired of hearing that the latest falsehood was part of a larger truth, or that it was OK because the president had attributed it to somebody else, or that the country should "move on." Bush promised to end all that. He promised an "era of responsibility" in which leaders and citizens would no longer "blame somebody else."

This month, Bush was given a chance to make good on those promises. In his State of the Union address earlier this year, he told Americans, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." But in March, the International Atomic Energy Agency debunked the only public documentation for that claim. And on July 6, a U.S. emissary who had been sent to Niger to check out the principal basis of the claim disclosed in the New York Times that he had found�and had told the U.S. government more than a year ago�that "it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place."

What do Bush and his aides have to say about this?


1. It's the CIA's fault.

2. It's the speechwriters' fault.

3. It's true that Britain said it.

4. It's part of a larger truth.

5. It's time to move on.

William Saletan, Slate

---

 

---

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
 
Its Jim McDougal's fault!
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
Ari Fleischer made the whole thing up in an attempt to foster worldwide anarchy.
This entire business in the middle east has been his doing all along!
Sainted President Bush has uncovered the shocking truth with help from his friends Rick and T.C. and confronted this diabolical fiend.
Mr. Fleischer was allowed to step down gracfully due to his long standing freindship with Mr. Bush.
He's just that kind of classy guy.
 

---

Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
 
Will we finally get to see Robin Masters?
 

---

Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
 
Calling all conspiracy theorists...
 

---

Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
 
Earlier this week, this gave me a chuckle. The guy was harmless - well, as harmless as a biological warfare expert could be I guess. I suspect he either took his own life, or the stress got to him and his heart went. It's very sad really.

But, did the government do him in? I doubt it. They'd hardly bring him to such prominence in an attempt to make him the BBC's mole then get rid of him so publicly. The MoD inquiry will be a whitewash. It'll more than likely castigate the BBC for failing to admit Dr. Kelly was the mole, when it's probable he wasn't. I notice even the Opposition are blaming the BBC, but then they have always had it in for them.
 

---

Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
 
I guess he was depressed then. Depression kills.
 

---

Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
 
All the tabloids - especially the Sun and the News of the World, both Murdock rags, and we all know how much of a rival Sky is to the Beeb - are gunning for the BBC right now over this.
 

---

Posted by Daryus Aden (Member # 12) on :
 
Indeed, quality Murdoch media.

Like the Herald Sun newspaper over here. You'd be lucky to find one decent bit of journalism per day. Between the ads, and sports reports. Oh and the stupid stories about how Barry made a huge turnaround in life after his cat got stuck up a tree.
 

---

Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
 
For those keeping score of the WMD finds, here is the batting average from the Powell speech to the UN.
Doesn't look like he has ever even played baseball.
 

---

Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lee:
All the tabloids - especially the Sun and the News of the World, both Murdock rags, and we all know how much of a rival Sky is to the Beeb - are gunning for the BBC right now over this.

---

quote:

---

America is nearly two years into invasions in which we have killed more civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan than the number who died in the United States on 9/11. Yet we have no Osama, no Saddam, no weapons of mass destruction, no nuclear weapons plants, no peace.

Derrick Z. Jackson, The Boston Globe

---

quote:

---

Wednesday 11 June 2003

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP)--At least 3,240 civilians died across Iraq during a month of war, including 1,896 in Baghdad, according to a five-week Associated Press investigation.

Niko Price, The Associated Press

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Omega:
Careful, man, you're just making the case against Canada worse than it already is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ultra Magnus:
I think, sometimes, that some Canadians seem to not realize that Americans think about Canadians far less than Canadians think Americans do.

---

quote:

---

The Soviet bloc not only sold Saddam its WMDs, but it showed them how to make them "disappear." Russia is still at it. Primakov was in Baghdad from December until a couple of days before the war, along with a team of Russian military experts led by two of Russia's topnotch "retired"generals,Vladislav Achalov, a former deputy defense minister, and Igor Maltsev, a former air defense chief of staff. They were all there receiving honorary medals from the Iraqi defense minister. They clearly were not there to give Saddam military advice for the upcomingwar�Saddam'sKatyusha launchers were of World War II vintage, and his T-72 tanks, BMP-1 fighting vehicles and MiG fighter planes were all obviously useless against America. "I did not fly to Baghdad to drink coffee," was what Gen. Achalov told the media afterward. They were there orchestrating Iraq's "Sarindar" plan.
The U.S. military in fact, has already found the only thing that would have been allowed to survive under the classic Soviet "Sarindar" plan to liquidate weapons arsenals in the event of defeat in war � the technological documents showing how to reproduce weapons stocks in just a few weeks.

---

quote:

---

Ion Mihai Pacepa, a Romanian, is the highest-ranking intelligence officer ever to have defected from the former Soviet bloc.

---

quote:

---

I did not fly to Baghdad to drink coffee....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wraith:
Haven't the Russians already been the bad guys?

---

quote:

---

"There are no "good guys"! No "bad guys"! We're just a bunch of....of GUYS!"

---

The Russians are hurtin for cash so it's no big suprise they sell what they can to whoever has the cake to buy it.

The truly scary thing is that a LOT of the talk spouted by the Rush Limbaugh crowd at the war's begining has recently been proven correct.
Including the Russians training the Iraquis on how to make/ ditch WMD's.
When Limbaugh is right (and writing Op/ed pieces for Wall Street Journal) we're all hosed.
 

---

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
 
I guess I should have place something there to indicate amusement over the fact that this hasn't dried up yet.....

No, no, we haven't had the Peruvians as bad guys yet, nor the Easter Islander's...

But their time is coming I tell ya....
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
I've never trusted Easter Islanders and I never will: I've never forgiven them for the death of my boy.
 

---

Posted by CaptainMike20X6 (Member # 709) on :
 
i dont recall passing the catchphrase baton to the next runner on that one.
 

---

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
 
That's a baton?? and here I was thinking you were really happy to see me back.... Oh well, I guess I am more pleased this way....
 

---

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
 
It is, so far, the theory which best supports what is known.

I'm waiting for any sort of actual factual attempt at debunking, but I know how likely that its from this crowd.

It even fits in with the Russians leaving Iraq at the last minute, and coming under fire.

It fits in with the documents, so many of which have been found that the inspection team still hasn't finished going over them, hasn't even filed any preliminary reports.

It fits in with the lack of substantial finds, since the Russians had most thorough about these kinds of things.

It fits in with both the posturing about AND the lack of use of such weapons.

It simply... fits.
 

---

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
Just to play Sadaam's Advocate, the nonexistance of WMD's in Iraq and Russia just generally being an ass would also account for all those things. Of course, it wouldn't account for all the unaccounted-for WMD materials.

So question: do we invade Russia?
 

---

Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
 
Well if the guy had shown some facts along with his speculation I might agree with you. This is a man who was not in the area, watching from the outside and guessing on what these guys were doing there. This is about as reliable as US intelligence reports out of Rummy's office.
 

---

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
 
or possiblities posted on Flare.....
 

---

Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
 
Like Rob's. B)
 

---

Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by First of Two:
It simply... fits.

---

quote:

---

U.S. Suspects It Received False Iraq Arms Tips

Intelligence officials are reexamining data used in justifying the war. They say Hussein's regime may have sent bogus defectors.

WASHINGTON � Frustrated at the failure to find Saddam Hussein's suspected stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, U.S. and allied intelligence agencies have launched a major effort to determine if they were victims of bogus Iraqi defectors who planted disinformation to mislead the West before the war.

The goal, according to a senior U.S. intelligence official, "is to see if false information was put out there and got into legitimate channels and we were totally duped on it." He added, "We're reinterviewing all our sources of information on this. This is the entire intelligence community, not just the U.S."

The far-reaching review was started after a political firestorm erupted this summer over revelations that President Bush's claim in his State of the Union speech that Iraq had sought to import uranium from Niger was based on forged documents.

Although senior CIA officials insist that defectors were only partly responsible for the intelligence that triggered the decision to invade Iraq in March, other intelligence officials now fear that key portions of the prewar information may have been flawed. The issue raises fresh doubts as to whether illicit weapons will be found in Iraq.

As evidence, officials say former Iraqi operatives have confirmed since the war that Hussein's regime sent "double agents" disguised as defectors to the West to plant fabricated intelligence. In other cases, Baghdad apparently tricked legitimate defectors into funneling phony tips about weapons production and storage sites.

"They were shown bits of information and led to believe there was an active weapons program, only to be turned loose to make their way to Western intelligence sources," said the senior intelligence official. "Then, because they believe it, they pass polygraph tests ... and the planted information becomes true to the West, even if it was all made up to deceive us."

Critics had charged that the Bush administration exaggerated intelligence on Iraq to bolster support for the war. The broader question now is whether some of the actual intelligence was fabricated and U.S. officials failed to detect it.

One U.S. intelligence official said analysts may have been too eager to find evidence to support the White House's claims. As a result, he said, defectors "were just telling us what we wanted to hear."

Hussein's motives for such a deliberate disinformation scheme may have been to bluff his enemies abroad, from Washington to Tehran, by sending false signals of his military might. Experts also say the dictator's defiance of the West, and its fear of his purported weapons of mass destruction, boosted his prestige at home and was a critical part of his power base in the Arab world.

Hussein also may have gambled that the failure of United Nations weapons inspectors to find specific evidence identified by bogus defectors ultimately would force the Security Council to lift sanctions imposed after the 1991 Persian Gulf War. U.S. officials now believe Hussein hoped to then covertly reconstitute his weapons programs.

"We're looking at that and every other possibility," the first intelligence official said. "You can't rule anything out.... People are really second-guessing themselves now."

The current focus on Iraqi defectors reflects a new skepticism within the Iraq Survey Group, the 1,400-member team responsible for finding any illicit arms. In interviews, several current and former members expressed growing disappointment over the inconclusive results of the search so far.

"We were prisoners of our own beliefs," said a senior U.S. weapons expert who recently returned from a stint with the survey group. "We said Saddam Hussein was a master of denial and deception. Then when we couldn't find anything, we said that proved it, instead of questioning our own assumptions."

The survey group is jointly led by David Kay, a former U.N. nuclear inspector who was named a CIA special advisor in June, and Army Maj. Gen. Keith Dayton, who headed the "human intelligence" service at the Defense Intelligence Agency. Kay has said he will issue a preliminary report next month.

Evidence collected over the last two months suggests that Hussein's regime abandoned large-scale weapons development and production programs in favor of a much smaller "just in time" operation that could churn out poison gases or germ agents if they were suddenly needed, survey group members say. The transition supposedly took place between 1996 and 2000.

But survey group mobile collection teams are still unable to prove that any nerve gases or microbe weapons were produced during or after that period, the officials said. Indeed, the weapons hunters have yet to find proof that any chemical or bio-warfare agents were produced after 1991.

The veracity of defectors is a key part of the puzzle, but only one aspect of it.

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell quoted several defector accounts in February, when he presented U.S. findings to the United Nations Security Council in an unsuccessful bid to win broad backing for military action in Iraq. But Powell also cited spy satellites, electronic intercepts of telephone and other communications, reports from U.N. inspectors and other intelligence sources.

Some defectors have come under fire previously. U.S. experts have long questioned the value of informants provided by pro-invasion Iraqi opposition groups in exile, saying they routinely padded their resumes or exaggerated their knowledge in exchange for asylum, visas or money.

The CIA and the State Department, in particular, distanced themselves from Iraqi defectors handed over by the Iraqi National Congress, a London-based umbrella group headed by Ahmad Chalabi. CIA and State Department officials repeatedly warned that the group's intelligence network had proved unreliable in the past.

Senior Pentagon officials, however, supported the former Iraqi banker's bid as a possible successor to Hussein. Chalabi, who now sits on the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council in Baghdad, has said his group provided the Defense Intelligence Agency with three defectors who had personal knowledge of Hussein's illicit weapons programs.

One, an Iraqi engineer, told the DIA in 2001 that he knew the location of biological weapons. However, no bioweapons have been found at the sites he named.

A second defector from Chalabi's group described what he said were mobile labs that could produce several hundred tons of biowarfare agents per year. The CIA has concluded that two trucks found in northern Iraq after the war were probably designed for biowarfare, but outside experts have sharply disputed those claims.

U.S. intelligence authorities dismissed the third defector, who claimed to be an expert in nuclear isotope separation, as a fraud.

The CIA launched its own internal review of intelligence in February before the war but did not re-interview defectors. The four-member panel, headed by Richard Kerr, former CIA deputy director, has only reviewed "finished" intelligence, not the "raw" reports that form their basis. The panel is awaiting the Iraq Survey Group report before judging whether CIA assessments were on target.

"So far, all they did was look at documents and see if they were well founded, and if the conclusions were justified based on the underlying intelligence," said a CIA spokesman. "Now they're waiting to see the outcome of what we find [in Iraq] so they can compare the two. It's in limbo."

With the Iraq Survey Group still at work, CIA and Pentagon officials declined to make Kay or Dayton, its leaders, available for interviews. But other survey group members, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of security clearances they are required to sign, said the evidence reviewed so far � including more than 30 million pages of documents � still doesn't support charges that Hussein secretly built chemical and biological weapons after U.N. inspectors were forced out of Iraq in 1998, as the Bush administration repeatedly warned.

"I haven't heard anyone run into the SOG [Survey Operations Center] saying, 'Eureka! We found the smoking gun,' " said a senior survey group member. "It's all still murky as hell."

The issue of timing is critical because a formal U.S. intelligence estimate sent to the White House and Congress in October starkly warned that Iraq had "begun renewed production" of mustard, sarin, cyclosarin and VX nerve gases and had 100 to 500 tons of chemical agents, "much of it added in the last year." The report also said that "most of the key aspects" of Iraq's bioweapons program "were more advanced" than before the 1991 war.

Evidence recently found by survey teams in Iraq includes detailed schedules, outlines and instruction sheets, among other documents, indicating covert plans to purchase and install "dual use" equipment in civilian laboratories and factories that could be quickly converted to military use if an order were suddenly issued.

"We've got a whole lot of documents that would substantiate a 'just in time' capability," said one of the recently returned survey team members. "They set up dual-use facilities so they could cook up what they needed, when they needed it. But otherwise they would be making whiter-than-white washing detergent or something."

In addition, some Iraqi scientists and technicians have claimed during interrogation that chemical and biological agents were produced under the "just in time" system as recently as 2002. But other Iraqis have said the system was never used or only produced small "test batches" in the mid- to late 1990s.

"We have some people who say, 'Yes, we were doing it,' or who say they exercised the production periodically," said the former survey official. "But you try to pursue it and it's not a clear picture. What they did with the material is unclear. If they did produce, what did they do with the results? If you just have a textbook or something on paper, that doesn't mean you can actually make this stuff. It's all still very fuzzy."

Another former survey team member said the evidence of a "just in time" program justifies the prewar concerns, even if the program was never activated.

"To me, there's no difference between finding a warehouse full of aerial bombs with nerve gas and a pencil-and-paper plan that will allow them to use their existing production capabilities to produce those same weapons in one week's time," he said.

U.N. weapons inspectors who scoured Iraq from 1991 to 1998 also theorized that Hussein sought to hide new weapons programs in civilian factories, hospitals and laboratories. Hussein had hidden much of his chemical and biological weapons production in pesticide plants, water-treatment facilities and other civilian infrastructure in the 1980s, but the U.N. teams found no newly built production operations in the 1990s.

Kay and Dayton briefed the Senate Intelligence and Armed Services committees behind closed doors in late July. They later told reporters that the survey group was making "solid progress" in unraveling Hussein's illicit programs. That led to sharp criticism from some Democrats.

"I remain cautious about whether we're going to find actual WMD," said Sen. John D. "Jay" Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. "Not just a program, but the very extensive weapons � ready for attack � that we all were told existed."

Rockefeller said he was "concerned" that the weapons hunters had not found "the 25,000 liters of anthrax, the 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin and the 500 tons of mustard, sarin and VX nerve gas" that Bush cited in his State of the Union speech in January.

Administration officials say they are still confident that weapons of mass destruction will be found. They note a sharp increase in the number of Iraqis providing useful information over the last month. One such tip last week led to a cache of shoulder-held surface-to-air missiles in northern Iraq, officials said.

In a television interview on Sunday, Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, cited the discovery this month of about 30 Soviet-era high-speed fighters and reconnaissance aircraft that had been buried in desert sands near the Taqqadum airfield west of Baghdad. U.S. troops had been operating in the area for more than three months before a sandstorm exposed a tail fin.

"They went to extraordinary lengths to bury an aircraft," Myers said.

"A 55-gallon drum with anthrax in it would be a lot more difficult to find and dig up. So it will work ... and we'll find what we're after."

Bob Drogin, The Los Angeles Times

---

 

---

Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
 
Meanwhile...
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
As far as the WMD goes I for one don't care if Insane Husane had 'em or not. He claimed at one time that he did. He gave aid and safe haven to our enemies. He proved that he would use them on his own people. He and his Cronies were and are a clear and present danger to the people of the United States therefor he is dead meat.
 

---

Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
 
Yes, thank you, newbie. Next!
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
My, Lee, what sharp teeth we have!
I commend and applaud you sir!
If only his name was Wesley, it would be sooo perfect.
 

---

Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
 
YEAH FUCK HUSSEIN HE SI GAY!1one1!1

OMG!!1 HE STICKS HIS PENAS INTO IRACKI GOETS!1one

USA USA USA
 

---

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
 
We're all welcome to our opinions.
 

---

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
 
True. And I have been trying to stand up for Mountain Man in the other thread, even though his name confused and frightens me. But still...

"He was a clear and present danger to the US"? In the same way that, say, North Korea is? Or obesity is?
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
Thank you Liam for your concern for the New guy. My user name on this Forum came to me because I recently inherited part of a mountain. Beautiful place very far from the city, May build a home there one day. If I seem a little blood thirsty thats easy enough to explain. I am a little blood thirsty when it comes to the subject of Terrorist and those who support them. There are quite a few flag drapped coffins in my families history. War is War. No one that I know of doubts that Saddam and his cronies are the enemy of the U.S.,and western society. No need to go to any great lenghts to prove anything here. If you threaten a man and claim you have a weapon and he blows you away. Whether you actualy had a weapon makes no difference. You are paid for. Fanatics are willing to die for their beliefs I say help them die.
 

---

Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
 
Oh, this is too good. I mean, really, you can't expect me to let this go by, can you? I mean, come on guys, this me! �)

Thank you Liam for your concern for the New guy.

He used to be Liam The New Guy. You're family.

My user name on this Forum came to me because I recently inherited part of a mountain.

As you do.

Beautiful place very far from the city, May build a home there one day.

Yes, let's all go find an untouched unspoilt wilderness and build houses there. I call Antarctica!

If I seem a little blood thirsty thats easy enough to explain.

Yours truly, Jack the Ripper.

I am a little blood thirsty when it comes to the subject of Terrorist and those who support them.

OK. . .

There are quite a few flag drapped coffins in my families history.

At least you got coffins back. My great-uncle died over France and my grandmother never got to see his memorial until a couple of years ago.

War is War.

It IS?!

No one that I know of doubts that Saddam and his cronies are the enemy of the U.S.,and western society.

I'm glad you make the distinction.

No need to go to any great lenghts to prove anything here.

Embroider that on a sampler and send it to Guantanamo!

If you threaten a man and claim you have a weapon and he blows you away. Whether you actualy had a weapon makes no difference. You are paid for.

What you say?! For great justice!

Fanatics are willing to die for their beliefs I say help them die.

All the same, I prefer them to those who prefer someone else die for their beliefs. . .

Oh, I enjoyed that! More, please!
 

---

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mountain Man:
I am a little blood thirsty when it comes to the subject of Terrorist and those who support them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lee:
Beautiful place very far from the city, May build a home there one day.

Yes, let's all go find an untouched unspoilt wilderness and build houses there. I call Antarctica!

---

Bitch!
Fine, dig up all the aliens and mammoths and stuff...jerk.
I call the Farralon Islands! Lets see the Latter Day Saints knock on my door there! Swim, churchie! SWIM FOR YOUR LIFE!
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
Boy I thought you guys were serious at first but I soon realized that no one is truly that stupid. Good joke. All the fake over the top Stereotype atheist treehugger crap makes a pretty good comedy routine. Can you sing and dance as well?
 

---

Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
 
"If the enemy strikes at us why should he expect any better than he got."

Because by striking back in kind you 1) become your enemy and 2) perpetuate the spiral of hatred. You can't eliminate terrorism through war.
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
Come on Cartman you can do better than that. Sounds like one of those post modern social theories to me. Terrorist have little in common with governments. Nations can come to terms but Fanatics must be eliminated. You seem to be mistaking Fanatics for those that have the ability to understand something besides violence.
 

---

Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
 
I like him. He's easy to tease. Can I keep him, Mom? Pleeeeeaaaaaassee? 8)
 

---

Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
 
Actually, it was my great-uncle who died - my grandmother's brother. Fleet Air Arm, Swordfish pilot, went to have a gander at a new AA installation on the French coast and got just that bit too close. Navigator survived the war in a prison camp.

My grandfather fighting alongside your kin (kin?! I'm seeing MM as Howard Keel in Seven Brides for Seven Brothers). . . Bit of a sore point there. He was a tank commander in Burma, saw some really nasty fighting. Thousands of Allied troops, mainly Brits, Anzacs and Indians, slogging through years of jungle combat. And then what happens? Errol Flynn makes a movie in which he and a handful of Yanks win the whole shebang without even crumpling their perfectly-pressed battledress.
 

---

Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
 
Attack, retaliation. Attack, retaliation.
Not only is it a pattern in the real world, it's a pattern here at Flare!
 

---

Posted by Tora Regina (Member # 53) on :
 
"Sounds like one of those post modern social theories to me."

You must've not read much Renaissance revenge tragedies. You know, the ones where subject A kills subject B for stepping on his toe, then B's brother C kills A, A's friend D kills C, C's cousin kills D, so on and so forth until you get a bunch of gory bodies on the stage at the end and the only people left in town are women. Woo!

"Terrorist have little in common with governments. Nations can come to terms but Fanatics must be eliminated. You seem to be mistaking Fanatics for those that have the ability to understand something besides violence."

And America solves problems by understanding the troubles of other nations and not taking advantage of their cheap labor and resources, thereby keeping peace in all the world.
 

---

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
 
We seem to be overrun by Tennesseans, Omega and now M².

Almost makes me want to go out and shoot a bar (that's bear to the rest of y'all.)
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
Don't think any of my kin were in Burma. One escaped when the Japs over ran Bataan and spent most of the war fighting along side the phillipinos. Several fought trough out the european theatre from Operation Torch to the final push to Berlin. Tennessee Riflemen made quiet a name for themselves as frontline combat soldiers. The Errol Flynn movie was based on actual events. Merril's Marauders fought along side the British and the Chinese. Most of our casualties came at Tarawa, Okinawa, and Sipan. Japs were tough and it took tough men to take them down. The English proved they had what it took but face it, they were outnumbered and without us you would be speaking German right now. Dramas? What about History?
 

---

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
 
Japs?!?!

What's that all about? It's 2003, how about we stop using the racial epithets.
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
Jappanese then. Or Niponese. Not easy to remain objective when disscussing those who have killed members of your family. Personaly never thought of the term as a racial epithet. Just an abreviation. There are a few racial epithets connected with the Jappanese, don't hear them much. Shooting BARS? Shooting up bars maybe. Howard Keel? Thank you, very nice compliment.
 

---

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
 
You know, I had family in WWII as well, a grandfather at Coral Sea, you don't have a corner on people who served their country either in WWII or in the rest of the history of the United States.
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
And how do you vote? Terrorist, Yay or Nay? WW2 is just one example my family has been here since before this was a country. Every war fought since the French and Indian War. None have died in Iraq yet. Knock on wood. Still, any American killed is a piece out of my heart. To get back on topic. Weapons of mass destruction. Airliners + Fanatics = Mass Destruction. Well lets hear an alternate plan for dealing with Al Queda. The floor is open gentlemen.
 

---

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
 
How do I vote? Well, like all right thinking peole,I definitely pro-terrorist. What a silly question.

Come on now, if you think invading Iraq did much of anything to dissuade the use of terror against the United States, well, I think you are sadly mistaken.

And if you think invading countries is going to do much of anything in the never ending war on terror, well, it doesn�t take too much to figure out that:

1) you can�t let the country slide back into anarchy from whence the terror grew (Afghanistan);

2) you have to be able to run the country better than the dictator you�ve just kicked out, and generally that means having some sort of reasonable plan. In the case of Iraq, it�s too bad that before the start of on hostilities the current administration was pretty much counting how much Halliburton was going to make on the war rather than trying to figure out how to get the necessities, oh electricity and water, to the people who live there;

3) being in Iraq ain't doing much to stop al Queda;

and

4) you can�t have a war huge tax cuts for the wealthy, have a war and pay for occupation and rebuilding at the same time.
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
Next. Come on folks, with all the brain power around here, there has to be a cure all for this very simple problem.
 

---

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
 
M² is a jokster.....

Next on M²'s list of things to straighten is the Deffie's length......

No cure's here, except for the one that says we agree to disagree, sometimes venamently.....

Actually, the WsMD are in the USA, buried in the ground ready for launch....
 

---

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
 
Personally, I'm all for ancestral rage fantasies. It's why I refuse to eat pizza, associated as it is with the descendants of the hated Romans. Teutonic pride!
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
Vehemently, I know it doesn't look right but thats the way it's spelled,or is that spelt. One of those who pointed out one of my errors, misspelled my misspelling, Gee this place is more fun than a barrel of monkeys. Not enough action in the SCI FI parts though. Wonder if any of these world class scholars ever actually graduated high school? Guess when they grade on a curve any thing is possible.
 

---

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
 
Zuh?

On a non-flamey sidenote, I do wonder sometimes what the average age is. The Old Guard is now mostly post-college, but we aren't in the majority.
 

---

Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
 
Of course, I never technically graduated from high school, because I was educated in a different school system. . .

Heh, the Old Guard. I always wanted to call ourselves the Grey Council. Perhaps we should have a new Member category above Perpetual, call it. . . now, how do you spell it? En'til'za? Is that the name for a Grey Councilmember, or just Minbari for Annoying Half-Minbari With Croatian Accent?

quote:

---

The English proved they had what it took but face it, they were outnumbered and without us you would be speaking German right now.

---

quote:

---

...there has to be a cure all for this very simple problem.

---

quote:

---

Well now since the English have never had a problem with calling Americans Yanks, Which is actually a derogatory term meaning thief...

---

quote:

---

Why make a big deal about the Abbreviation of Jappanese?

---

quote:

---

And no I've never believed that this is a very simple problem.

---

quote:

---

Entil-zha means The One, man. It doesn't matter who holds the office of head of the Rangers. What kind of a fan are you?

---

quote:

---

Different school system. That would be english I expect. Well now since the English have never had a problem with calling Americans Yanks, Which is actually a derogatory term meaning thief,or calling the Australians Aussies. Why make a big deal about the Abbreviation of Jappanese? That is a very, very weak argument. As far as how the Jappanese military behaved in WW2, really people what defense is there for that level criminal savagery. England is a great country, and showed great courage in facing the threat of being cut off and slowly but surely destroyed by a powerful enemy. But without allies they were sunk. Perhaps actually studying the War and the numbers would clue you in on that.BTW Errol Flynn was an Australian the movie that you mentioned would have been Objective Burma. Hard to see how that movie could be an insult to England. Still that does show a certain degree of petty behavior that I've come to expect. So carry on Enstein no answers here yet, the world is waiting.

---

quote:

---

Never heard of any Japanese being upset by the term...

---

quote:

---

Satai, I think. Sounded Jappish. B)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mountain Man:
So we have a British citizen who does not recognize the term Yank or have any idea of what it means. And doesn't know that Errol Fylnn was an Australian. And of course Britain needed no allies. Well there will be no answers to any questions from that corner. P.S. yes I have met a few Japanese Americans. None thought anything about the abreviation since they use it themselves.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mountain Man:
None thought anything about the abreviation since they use it themselves.

---

quote:

---

The origin of Yankee has been the subject of much debate, but the most likely source is the Dutch name Janke, meaning �little Jan� or �little John,� a nickname that dates back to the 1680s. Perhaps because it was used as the name of pirates, the name Yankee came to be used as a term of contempt. It was used this way in the 1750s by General James Wolfe, the British general who secured British domination of North America by defeating the French at Quebec. The name may have been applied to New Englanders as an extension of an original use referring to Dutch settlers living along the Hudson River. Whatever the reason, Yankee is first recorded in 1765 as a name for an inhabitant of New England. The first recorded use of the term by the British to refer to Americans in general appears in the 1780s, in a letter by Lord Horatio Nelson, no less. Around the same time it began to be abbreviated to Yank. During the American Revolution, American soldiers adopted this term of derision as a term of national pride. The derisive use nonetheless remained alive and even intensified in the South during the Civil War, when it referred not to all Americans but to those loyal to the Union. Now the term carries less emotion�except of course for baseball fans.

---

quote:

---

And doesn't know that Errol Fylnn was an Australian.

---

Christ, what a idiot this guy is. Surely no-one can really be this stupid? Are we now expected to state every fact we know about anything when the subject comes up? We might have to, since in Mountain Troll's weird little world not saying Errol Flynn is Australian = not knowing Errol Flynn is Australian! Despite the fact his nationality had almost no bearing on anything whatsoever! In fact, yes, Errol was Australian - Tasmanian, actually. He played an American in a film which downplayed the role of British/Commonwealth troops, many of whom resented it. Partly because he WAS one of them!
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
Did you know Mel gibson is Austrailian?
Cause, you know, it's bound to come up.
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
Mistaking Hollywood for history. How sad.
 

---

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
 
Mel Gibson, of course, was born in New York.

quote:

---

Just as I would speak up were Sol to call a group of people "wetabacks" or some such.

---

Yeah, what of it? Goddamned New Zealanders are stealing American jobs!

(Because: WETA.)
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
Don't bust on New Zealand: It'll be an American national park once our master plan is reaiz...er...
prahaps I've said too much already.
 

---

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
 
Wet-a-back, of course, in my best WOP Chico Marx voice.
 

---

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Veers:
So, um, where ARE these WMDs?

---

quote:

---

Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, said he thinks "there's a very good chance" that weapons of mass destruction will eventually be found.

On Wednesday, Rockefeller chided White House officials for what he saw as a retreat from their original assessment of the Iraqi threat by pointing to evidence of weapons programs, rather than to actual weapons.

Asked Thursday after his committee's briefing whether he had confidence actual weapons would be found, Rockefeller said, "I don't know whether I'm confident or not, but I certainly am hopeful that we're going to find weapons of mass destruction, and I think there's a very good chance of that."

He also said he doesn't believe that if the weapons exist they would have been found by now.

"I've always had the feeling that somewhere out in the deserts in a country the size of California, these things could be buried. There could be surprises," Rockefeller said.

---

quote:

---

Sen. John "Jay" Rockefeller, vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said he welcomed the upcoming hearings, but described them as "not sufficient" and called for a "full fact-finding investigation."

"We need to be able to request additional intelligence documents; interview intelligence community and administration officials, past and present; hold closed and open hearings, and prepare a final public report on lessons learned," the West Virginia Democrat said in a statement.

---

quote:

---

there's a very good chance" that weapons of mass destruction will eventually be found.

---

Another startling case for pre-emptive war.
 

---

Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
 
*snore*
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
Lucky we Nuked the Japanese before they developed a delivery system for the Black plague they were developing in China. Saved a lot of lives then. Out of the question now of course. Too bad would have made for some nice sunsets.
 

---

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
 
Do you use some sort of random thought generator when you post?
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
Yes I do. Isn't it just so boring when everyone is politicaly correct.
 

---

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
 
Are you of the mistaken impression that the Japanese DIDN'T conduct biological warfare experiments with the plague in China during WWII?
Unit 731

It also says that the US helped them cover it up. That, at least, you should have no problem believing.
 

---

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
 
Is that a question for me Rob?
 

---

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
 
Maybe. I was trying to discern the meaning of your last post. Probably it's just part of the preceeding irrelevant tangent.
 

---

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
 
I see.

Yes, I do know about the Japanese biological warfare experiments. I was simply wondering how that had anything to do with the thread or what was being discussed up to this point.
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
 

---

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
 
A stitch in time saves nine.
 

---

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
 
A penny saved is a penny earned....

This is, ummm, getting really off the wall, so to say....
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jay the Obscure:
I see.

Yes, I do know about the Japanese biological warfare experiments. I was simply wondering how that had anything to do with the thread or what was being discussed up to this point.

---

If we nuked everyone with bio-weapons we'd be one crispy planet by now.
Starting with ourselves,....of course e're 'just researching" them as a defense against their use" or some crap.

Without turning this thread into a WWII debate, the situation back them was far far diffrent than that of today.

...and Jay was correct: it was just a random comment, not that that's anything new to this thread or anything.
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
Bio war would cost the third world more casualties than any one else. Spanish lady, ever heard of that. More died from that disease than died in World War One. Bio weapons, anyone here doubt that a fanatic would use them? Ready to take the chance?
 

---

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
 
Jason, "situation back them was", is it catchy???

Can we compare apples and necterines like this, without having the oranges get jealous???
 

---

Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
 
So, um, any luck in finding out which US bioweapons scientist carried out his little fundraising anthrax mailer?
 

---

Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
 
"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

It shows.
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
Perhaps the Neville Chamberlain of Fluffy town will find the answer in an Errol FLynn Movie or a supermarket tabloid. So many of the internet scholars seem to have gotten their education and knowledge of world events from those sources. Grey council what a hoot.Try using your head and you will realize that human nature governs politics not the other way around. look at the Middle Eastern situation as it is rather than how you would like for it to be.
 

---

Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
 
Troll, troll, troll, troll,
troll, troll, troll, troll,
odious troll, tedious troll. . .
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
Flame zone remember no asbestos supplied. Or is that just another load of bull
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ritten:
Jason, "situation back them was", is it catchy???

Can we compare apples and necterines like this, without having the oranges get jealous???

---

Don't go getting all fruity on me now.
I was...ah..Just testing you!
That's it!
 

---

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
 
M², although the "Neville Chamberlain of Fluffy town " thing was funny, dude, do you have a serious point?

Or any point at all for that matter?
 

---

Posted by Charles Capps (Member # 9) on :
 
Something you fail to understand here, Mountain Man, is that the Flameboard is to talk about flameworthy topics, not to flame the shit out of each other.

The BS stops.

Failure to do so will result in a few bans being pulled.
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
Just a missconception. Partly because of the label. Looked like it meant anything goes. No harm meant.
 

---

Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
 
To drag this thread kicking and screaming back to something even approaching the point...

Looks like Hoon wasn't being entirely truthful

And the dossier was 'over-egged'. Whether or not this is worse than sexing up has yet to be confirmed.
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
"the first casualty of war is the truth" Don't remember who said that.
 

---

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charles Capps:
The BS stops.

---

I am terribly upset. Where's the "Now"?
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
You've apparently missunderstood the meaning of the Quote. It means that people lie about things when Wars are being planned. Any journalist would recognize that. The book that uses part of that Quote as its title is a classic about war corespondents. I was actually trying to be on your side for once.Perhaps its just a bit obscure. It is about human nature and how things like the truth are twisted to the purpose of those who have an agenda. It can be taken to mean just about what ever you want it to mean.
 

---

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
 
Who are you talking to?
 

---

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
 
Wraith, I think, but it my have been himself....
 

---

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
 
In his first reply, sure. And then Liam talks to Charles, and then Mr. Man posts again addressing...?
 

---

Posted by CaptainMike20X6 (Member # 709) on :
 
he's talking to the board itself.

how long until CC upgrades another decimal in the beta version number and this puppy accidentally becomes self aware. what will we have created?
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
A matter of thread leakage and general animosity. This made Liams post appear to be a protest to my post. Just the sort of missunderstandings that screw up peace talks. On a smaller scale.
 

---

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
 
I would say, Liam, 'e's a reasonably smart chap, and misunderstanding, "The BS stops." seems only remotely conceivable.....

For him that is.....



 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
Comes from trying to read the personality behind the mask. My own point of view is of course the only right one. Thats how it is with us fanatics. How would you like it if I were the one with the WMDs. My firing solution has already been ploted. and both keys are in place. Quite simple to rig this baby so I can turn both keys myself, been planing this for two years now. Lets hear a good reason not to nuke. Of course I'm just pulling your leg.
 

---

Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
 
"Don't remember who said that."

H. W. Johnson, 1917.

"what will we have created?"

A MONSTAR!!
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
Now there you go. Cartman at least looked it up. Another Quote. From a Supreme court justice. "there can be no calm reflection in the face of an upraised knife" not exact but close. One from Hollywood, for those who look to it for inspiration. "the ultimate weapon is a man without a conscience" And one I really like "Guns don't kill people, People with guns kill people"
 

---

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
 
Are we calm yet?
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
Cool as a Moose. The clock is ticking gentlemen. A great day is coming. Find those bloody weapons. When you have found the answer to ,how to deal with terrorist, that does not involve the extermination of said terrorist. The world will raise a pyramid in your honor. So lets get the Show on the road.
 

---

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mountain Man:
Cool as a Moose.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mountain Man:
Then the entire history of this case has sliped past you? State sponsored world terrorism is a fact, that no one is not affected by in some way. The head in the sand approach is only good for a Darwin Award. And how does Saddams behavior relate to being Arab? Do you have such a low opinion of Arabs?

---

Er... No it hasn't slipped by me. Yes, I know state sponsored terrorism is a fact but as I recall there has been no proof whatsoever that Saddam has helped Al-Qaeda (who were responsible for 9/11, if you recall); in fact he knocked off one of their guys when he refused to help Saddam set up his own terrorist network. Ergo, I can not see how Saddam can be responsible for 9/11. I most certainly do not have my head in the sand over terrorism of any sort.

Saddam's behavior has nothing to do with his being Arabic, I was merely taking the piss out of certain Americans who do seem to believe that Arab=terrorist.
 

---

Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
 
This thread has singlehandedly restored my faith that the Flameboard can be a source of tremendous entertainment served with a steaming side of holyfucktherearepeoplelikethis.

Anyway, assuming Mountain Man lives on top of his respective rock rather than under it, surely he'll be the first to admit that in his long and glorious lineage of warrior-poets there're a few good old boys who defended TEH FREEDOME!1! in Latin America or wherever else your great crucible of righteousness decided to dabble in a bit of state-sponsored terrorism of its own.
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
Be sure and volunteer to be a character witness at your buddy Sadams trial. Or better yet prove your convictions by straping on a bomb. Collect your Darwin award on the way out.
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
And remember that an honorary degree in marxist revisionist history from Patrice Lamumba university is only good for toliet paper even in Russia now days. You are behind the times a bit. You guys are more fun than a barrel of monkeys. What a bunch of marooneys defending this loser. This wouldn't fly on Geraldo.
 

---

Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
 

IT'S GOOD!

(...and in the name of pinko multilateralism, a picture of an Aussie-rules umpire, because, goshdurnit, they're so bloody cool:)



You, sir, have brightened my day. We'll see if you can kick one from further out a little later on.
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
Yea good thing America did not cave to the Japanese and give them the oil they wanted to conquer Australia along with the rest of that part of the world. People forget who their allies were sometimes. Most Australians don't.
 

---

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
 
*boggle*

"He was not dealing with a person; he had a reflex-arc thing at the other end of the phone line."
--
Philip Dick, VALIS
 

---

Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
 
Wait. I have to hear this.
Mountain Man--What's your opinion on Saudi Arabia, the country where 15 of the hijackers were from?
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
That will have to wait for another thread. And if you doubt the statement about the oil read up on just where all the oil came from back then. Can't believe they did not mention that in the history books. We simply must start a thread on the realities of world history. A clue. What made the German War machine falter at just the right time. And ask your self why the Japanese sacraficed her intire merchant fleet attempting to import oil. Oil was the key. Come on people think.Use your head for something besides a hat rack.
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
I'll give you guys time to hit the books. Please don't embarass yourselves too much. The low reguard for historical accuracy here is apalling.
 

---

Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
 
Oh, I think we're all up for a history quiz.

Matching. Nice and simple. Just like Elementary School. I've got a list of historical bad guys, dictators, leaders of terrorist movements, etc. etc. (if you'd like to pull a Coulter and make the case that one or several are in fact wonderful people smeared by the organized liberal media, be my guest) and I'd like you to please match them with their main state sponsor. Obviously not an exhaustive list.

a) Augusto Pinochet, Chile, 70s-80s
b) Mobuto Sese Seko, Zaire, 70s-90s
c) The Shah, Iran, 70s
d) Pol Pot, Cambodia, 70s-80s
e) Saddam Hussein, Iraq, 80s
f) Adolfo Calero, Nicaragua, 80s
g) Manuel Noriega, Panama, 80s
h) Jonas Savimbia, Angola, 80s-90s
i) Nicolai Ceauceauscu, Romania, 80s-90s
j) Suharto, Indonesia, 60s-90s
k) House of Saud, Saudi Arabia, 30s-
l) Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan, 00s-


i. U.S.S.R.
ii. P.R.C.
iii. U.S.A.
iv. U.S.A.
v. U.S.A.
vi. U.S.A.
vii. U.S.A.
viii. U.S.A.
ix. U.S.A.
x. U.S.A.
xi. U.S.A.
xii. U.S.A.

I'd be happy to post the answers afterwards.
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
Hey since we gave aid to the U.S.S.R. we have either directly or indirectly given aid to every wacko on your list. I'll let you supply the details. One moment while I double check to see if you missed any. And while you fill in the details add who brought them down when the time came.Ps.did you forget Castro? really dude We have given aid to practicaly every government on this planet at one time or another. Our enemies as well as our allies.
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
Am I to take this as an excuse for supporting terrorist? Oh yeah we have also given aid to China Mao As well as Chaing and both North as well as south vietnam back when it was still Indo China. Americans fought against Franco. Fought for and against Panco Villa . there are not enough pages to list the bad choices we have made or the good ones. While you are at it add the PRC USSR UK and most other countries to almost if not all those names.Like I've never run into this crap before. Shame on you thought you had some class.
 

---

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
 
I join Simon in his *boggle*.

Somehow this thread has become a discussion of Japanese oil in World War II?
 

---

Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
 
It wasn't meant to be an exhaustive list by any means. But I think we have established that America, like pretty much every nation, has in the past made mistakes and supported some pretty crappy people. That isn't revisionist history. What's revisionist is when you ignore your nation's own history of past foreign idiocy and instead start up with the USA! ALL TEH WAY!1! bullshit.

Want to stop terrorists? Stop arming them. Sure, they won't be as well able to blow up your enemies real good, but at least you get the assurance they won't be as well able to turn around and try to blow you up, or slaughter their own people, or any of those wonderful things that go on in this world.

Oh, the answers: (a)iii. (b)iv. (c)v. (d)ii. (e)vi. (f)vii. (g)viii. (h)ix. (i)i. (j)x. (k)xi. (l)xii.
 

---

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
 

quote:

---

Shame on you thought you had some class.

---

Bad, horrible Tom.
 

---

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
 
There's so much stuff screaming out at me from my monitor, but a quick list comprises of:

"China Mao"

Convenient name, I suppose. Good thing it wasn't made a rule, otherwise that bloke behind the videogame "Alice" would be running the US now. Although that would be interesting. "Britain Blair" sounds like the worst alter-ego Stan Lee never came up with.


"This wouldn't fly on Geraldo."

I'm tempted to post something like: "surely the ultimate in moral arbritation ever", but I think I'll stick with the following.

???


"When you have found the answer to ,how to deal with terrorist, that does not involve the extermination of said terrorist. The world will raise a pyramid in your honor."

Again, I'm tempted to go with "Well, maybe not carpet bombing countries for decades at a time while donating money to aid terrorism", but I think I'll again go with that old standby:

???!
 

---

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
 
Even though I probably shouldn't even be speaking to bad, horrible, shameful Tom, how can the House of Saud and Pervez Musharraf, be on the list?

The are our allies against terror aren't they? Either they are for us or against us. Isn't that the way it's supposed to go now?

Of course you know that's just sarcasm.
 

---

Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
 
OK, so no comment on Saudi Arabia's opressive regime.
Then, MM, why do you say Saddam had something to do w/September 11?
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
After that last display of theatrics I'm going to have to take a break. You know I've been around some pretty stupid con men in my day but the cook book method never impressed me. I'll give your question some thought since it is an honest question unlike the lost Marx brother's dog and pony show. Check back tomorrow. Must take care of business. P.S. just now looked at the back log. these jokers still haven't caught on. won't bother pointing out their mistakes this time they'll never learn any thing till they do that for themselves.
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
Might as well . China,Mao as well as Chiang. Mao not China Mao must have missed a comma or something. Not worth making a comment about for anyone else.Bite me.
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
Actualy why not use the commie method. Prove with out doubt that he didn't. I'll let you in on a secret. My original statement still holds I don't give a rats ass. He is dead meat.One way or the other that punk is history. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. Play times over. And take a look at his inventory alot of commie hardware almost exclusivly Soviet and French. And of course those Chinese Silkworm missles. Why don't you boys do some homework.PS almost forgot his British centurion tanks,But since they were captured during the Iran-Iraq war after their crews were killed by poison gas, the Brits aren't responsible for that.
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
Clues for study 1. OIL 2. world war two 3. Iran 4. Germany 5. Ploesti oil field 6. Libya 7. Texas & Oklahoma Oil fields 8. British petroleum 9. German extermination camps 10. Palestine 11. Arab league 12. Stalin 13. Saddam Hussein. P.S. Arms for hostages. Not as simple as you thought eh matey. If you can't figure it out from there you lose.
 

---

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mountain Man:
And take a look at his inventory alot of commie hardware almost exclusivly Soviet and French.

---

"It's the French!"

"Worse. The Commie-French."

Er, then maybe something like...

"Ve will distribute our fine wines nad baguettes to all peoples!"

I don't know. I am horny.
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
Mountain Man's ramblings make you horny?
Seek professional help.

It's so doubtful that saddam knew anything about 9/11 untill he saw it on CNN (remember the same people we're trying to help now were cheering the deaths of our civillians back then?).
While I'm all for Iraq becoming democratic and us finishing Saddam's regime off, we really skipped the obvious target of Saudi Arabia.
That's where most of the diehard terrorists have sprung up from in the past ten years after all.
Not Iraq.
Add to that the lack of any conclusive evidence showing Iraq's participation in 9/11.
If we had evidence of that, there would be no political detractors to Blair or Bush.
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
Jason you have a good head on your shoulders so I'll give you a straight answer. I have been demonstrating the difficulty of reasoning with one who can not be reasoned with. It just can not be done. My historical references are valid, and a good student could gain some idea of how this situation came to be. It's a head game boys. Whats the matter, never studied psychology?
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
Studied yes. Wanted to be a part of someone's idea of a phyche exam?
No.

So, why do you think we're letting the Saudi's grow terrorists while we support their ruling class?
The idea seems to be "it could get worse without the Royal Family there" but it seems less likely every day.
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
Tell you for true, if I ran things it would be a dark night of terror for the entire human race. Lets hear your slant for a while. I've come here to learn not teach. But though I was born at night, it was not last night. "Cool as a Christian with aces wired".
 

---

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
First: I hereby wish to point out that I am typing this without having read most of Mountain Man's comments. They're incoherant, partially from a linguistic standpoint, but mostly from a logical one. Total non sequitors. Please MM, try to stay on topic, because otherwise you won't be taken seriously.

Second: We didn't take out the Saudi government because that government doesn't seem to support terrorism. Shoot, they kicked out bin Laden and company. Just because the terrorists came from Saudi Arabia doesn't mean that the Saudi government supported them, any more than all Arabs are terrorists because most high-profile terrorists lately have been arabic. Iraq was just as valid a target as Saudi Arabia on terrorism grounds, seeing as they've been involved in at least one attempted assassination and there were training camps in the country, and even moreso seeing as they refused to account for a good bit of weapons material that they had at one point.
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
Seriously, all this international intrigue began with the Cuban Missle Crisis. Believe it or not. The U.S.A. has been able, but not willing, to lay waste any country that showed any agression towards us. People like me are the ones that sat in underground emplacements with the keys and codes for Total Global Thermonuclear Destruction in our hands. Thats a real strain on the brain don't think otherwise. I remember that little bald commie bastard beating the table with his shoe hollering "We will bury you" think anyones going to let that slide. Now we have a dead and rotting Soviet Union, and these idiots that think killing a few thousand civilians can sway politicians to their way of thinking. Where the hell did they get the idea that our leaders care about casualties. Oil is what fuels politics. One branch of my family started the first big oil field in Texas. So I've learned a little about the subject over the years. The suicide bombers are victims as well as those killed in the attacks. Religious fanatics are mentaly ill. No bull here they are being used,by criminals to try to establish their own empires. Until that is realized by the people of the whole bloody world there will be no end to terrorism.
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
And the Russians are pissed because they and the French are never going to collect on all the war material that they sold Saddam. This has been all over the news. And France has a strong Communist party one of the few left in europe. They are double dealing punks, that sooner or later will get theirs. Remember what the Russian leader used to do for a living?
 

---

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
 
Well, now, if you keep posting to youself like this you're going to pass Jeff up, if not Tim.....
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Omega:
We didn't take out the Saudi government because that government doesn't seem to support terrorism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mountain Man:
And France has a strong Communist party one of the few left in europe.

---

Because if there's one thing the elections last year proved, it's that France is super crazy left-wing mad.
 

---

Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
 
LOL; either the facist or the crook. Therefore they must be commies.

Seriously, though most countries have a communist party, even the UK. They're called Bob and Tom. And the Communists are still fairly powerful in the Russian Federation.

MM: I'm not entirely sure what you're driving at. Or even saying in many cases. There is no evidence at all that Saddam was involved in the September 11th attacks. Bush did briefly try and connect Al Quaeda but as no evidence turned up even he stopped saying that! I am also completely unable to see what refusing to jump to conclusions based on no evidence has to do with being a Marxist (which I'm not) or supporting terror.

Incidentally, that Aussie rules umpire that The_Tom posted looks like Saddam...

There is no 'low regard for historical accuracy' here BTW, only from you, apparently. Your contentionthat the lack of oil suffered by the Third Reich and the Japanese is 'not mentioned' in history books is ludicrous. As it was a major cause of the downfall of these countries it can hardly have been glossed over (especially as Hitler emphasised the importance of capturing the Soviet oilfields).
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
I'm still stirring the pot to see what comes to the surface. Part of the game.
 

---

Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
 
OK, seriously now, what are you talking about?
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
All will be revealed. Not now. Games just begun.
 

---

Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
 
Newsflash: nobody here gives a flying FUCK about your little games.
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
Don't take it personal Cartman. We must use a cold mind.
 

---

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
Yeah, otherwise the brain-flavored ice cream doesn't turn out so well.

Listen, man, Cartman's right, this board is not about your style of game. You're being vague and acting like that makes us think you're wise, when it really makes us think you just don't have a clue what you're talking about. If you have something to say, SAY IT. We're here to talk, not to learn from you. Good thing, too, because if you were our teacher you'd be doing a really sucky job.
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
Here to learn, not teach. Continue the thread, its still interesting. Tick,tick,tick,
 

---

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
 

+ Brain Disease

= MOUNTAIN MAN!
 

---

Posted by Charles Capps (Member # 9) on :
 
Ladies, please.
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
No harm meant charley. Got their juices flowing a bit.
 

---

Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
 
Great Idea!!!
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
And it's odd that the appearance of the Australian rules reff could have been of any importance, since he looks a lot like me. This thread is stranger than you think.
 

---

Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
 
STAR TREK ORIGINAL MESSAGE WAS LOOKING FORWARD NOT LOOKING BACK
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
That would be nice. Not likely to happen though. Been going on for too many decades. Algeria and the French ,first wide spread use of explosives by terrorist against innocent civilians. Restaurants at first. Difficult to solve a problem without finding its root cause.
 

---

Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
 
What does Algeria have to do with anything?
 

---

Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
 
With this thread, I mean.
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
Not trying to be mysterious that time. I'm still looking at the problem from the point of view that the weapons are going to be there when ever the terrorist need them. The pyschology of Terrorism and what it hopes to acomplish.I've Got a friend that lived there.Heard some of what went down. It sort of goes to motive. Head games are over. May add something useful later, but its too close to the day for it to matter now.
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/amherst/lord_jeff.html Heres something that illustrates just how simple it is for a madman to wage biological warfare without modern equipment. follow the links and you will see things you don't want anyone ever to see in real life. P.S. just because this British snoot killed tens of thousands of my ancestors in the most cowardly way possible doesn't mean I hate Brits.But it may give you an idea of why the mention of racism and Biological warfare at this time pushed me close to the edge.
 

---

Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
 
Dude, you don't need to post the same link in two threads.
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
Different reasons same information.Relevant to the topic. Think about the implications.And I should have said murdered rather than killed.Think I wouldn't rather see a mushroom cloud in the middle east than the skies darkened all over the Earth by the funeral pyres of billions.
 

---

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
 
Take off every zig!
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
For the tree huggers. Remember this.Tactical strikes now will end all that polution from petroleum. Radiation will be your friend. You won't need street lights. You will glow in the dark like the little angels you are.There will be peace in the middle east, the peace of the grave.
 

---

Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
 
Move Zig.
 

---

Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
 
For great justice
 

---

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
 
I see, the WMDs are in all of us, very much like when the first invaders came here and contaminated the locals....
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
How difficult would it be to hide bioweapons? Not very difficult at all. So since they haven't been found yet can you be absolutly certain that they do not exist. As long as there is doubt we must continue to search. In that respect even if they are never used the threat has been partly sucessfull. If you don't want to think about the question don't. Think about something else. Go watch a good movie,or something.Have a good time.Let those who's job it is, handle the search.
 

---

Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
 

quote:

---

Think I wouldn't rather see a mushroom cloud in the middle east than the skies darkened all over the Earth by the funeral pyres of billions.

---

quote:

---

How difficult would it be to hide bioweapons? Not very difficult at all.

---

Well, seing as how this isn't the 18th century it isn't all that easy. Some trace would have to be found, at least at the production facilities, even if they had been sterilised some trace should be found. Especially is Iraq which didn't have the most modern equipment or most efficient government did it?
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
A home made bomb kills just the same as a factory made bomb. As you yourself pointed out all that would be needed to start any bio war program is an infected corpse. There are plenty of those around the third world. Worse diseases than small pox as well. All it really requires is someone ready to do it. The facts prove that there are people like that in all cultures. Preventing plagues is a lot harder than starting them. I have made my point in a round about way. It Doesn't matter whether anyone agrees or not. Well that all thats required of this thread as far as i'm concerned. Carry on with the masterplan. Save the world,You can do it. I have faith in you.

[ September 08, 2003, 04:37 AM: Message edited by: Mountain Man ]
 

---

Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
 
Well, yes, you are basically right there; I was refering to the possible discovery of bioweapons facilities in Iraq.

Incidentally, what do you all think of Meacher's allegations?

the mad ravings of a 'loony lefty' or a serious possibility that deserves investigation?
 

---

Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
 
Sounds a bit over the top...

Didn't pre-9/11 Bush basically want more American isolationism, and actually pull out of a lot of oversees military activities? Or was that just election-bullshit?
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/911.html I'll check out your link later I've got business today. Heres one to study if you like. Exchange of information is good for harmony and understanding. Not enough of that in the world. Don't know if this link will work or not. I've checked and can't see any error but it did not come up. Could be because it Government but it's not clasified could be some tech problem.
 

---

Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
 
Yeah, I keep getting this:

'Host Address Not Found: The proxy could not find an IP address for the host in your request. Possible causes include mistyped URL, misconfigured DNS and transient network problems.'
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
Yeah i saw the missing c in access but when I tried to edit, connections went out. I'll try again.
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
I hate to double post like this but net connections are blinking out when I try to edit. The link works now. P.S. I just tried the edit again this time it worked. must be something in my cable, or a server down the line. See you later.
 

---

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
 
Maybe Mr. Kay hasn't got what some others suggest Mr. Kay had.

quote:

---

Iraq WMD report shelved due to lack of evidence

London: After failing to get any evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the US and Britain have decided to delay indefinitely the publication of a full report on the controversial issue, media reported today.

Efforts by the Iraq Survey Group, an Anglo-American team of 1,400 scientists, military and intelligence experts, to scour Iraq for the past four months to uncover evidence of chemical or biological weapons have so far ended in failure, The Sunday Times claimed in its report.

It had been expected that a progress report would be published tomorrow but MPs on the British Parliaments security and intelligence committee have been told that even this has been delayed and no new date set.

British defence intelligence sources have confirmed that the final report, which is to be submitted by David Kay, the survey groups leader, to George Tenet, head of the CIA, had been delayed and may not necessarily even be published, the paper said.

In July, Kay suggested on US television that he had seen enough evidence to convince himself that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had had a programme to produce weapons of mass destruction.

He expected to find "strong" evidence of missile delivery systems and "probably" evidence of biological weapons.

But last week British officials said they believed Kay had been "kite-flying" and that no hard evidence had been uncovered.

The hunt for weapons is seen in London and Washington as a vital step in convincing an increasingly sceptical public that the war was justified.

Sify News

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mountain Man:
The real worry is what if we stop looking too soon. Some of the stuff the Russians tried to destroy many years ago by filling the containers with pure bleach was found to still have viable spores. A time bomb of rusting containers may be just below the surface and that is a lot of country to hide something in. As long as the containers stay sealed there is no problem but what about next year?

---

quote:

---

The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mountain Man:
Unlike the average Trekie I have actually been places and met people. The Elderly Italian was the Grandfather of a business associate. He could not speak english. His grandson translated. He had been at Bari when the bombing raid took place and was badly burned by the gas. Having actually met a victim of poison gas,I became interested in the subject. His injuries were mostly to the lungs.

---

quote:

---

And I can actually connect myself to Kevin Bacon by six degrees of separation.

---

quote:

---

PS the recent changes in the governments stance on Saddams involvement in 911 came as a suprize to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lee:
Y'know, Troll-dude, if you actually knew half the people you claim to, your social-life would be so all-encompassing you'd never have time to post on some poxy internet bulletin board!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by First of Two:
Now, when UM says something like that, it's funny. When I say it, it's isn't. Why IS that?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Malnurtured Snay:
Because there's nothing threatening about Pennsylvania or anyone who lives there.

---

Threatening enough to have stomped on the Ravens the last time they came to town.
 

---

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
 
It's just one of those odd flukes of nature.
 

---

Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
 
So, I'm the average Trekkie, I've never been anywhere, and I'm suffering from an apparent veneral disease. Not of course that I'd credit any sort of opinion on matters sexual from someone who thinks two girls sitting on him is the same thing as having a threesome! 8)

So tell us, Mounteychops, where have you been? I'm dying to hear about your wild jetsetting around the globe.
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
We haven't heard about your trip to Tuscany yet. Did you visit the Abbey? As for where I've been, None of your bees wax. Anyone can make up a big list of places and find enough on the net to make it sound convincing so why bother. Go to the free clinic and get that problem taken care of. The pissing contest is over as far as I'm concerned.
 

---

Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
 
Well, yes, actually, Tuscany was very nice. Of course, I'm not going to waste my time telling a little pissant like you about it. Especially since you're actually about 13 years old and have never left Tennessee (if that's where you really are, I doubt it). Boah, ah'm tellin' ya, this heah pissin' contest ain't gonna be done with till ah say it is, ya dig? 8)
 

---

Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
 

quote:

---

So, I'm the average Trekkie, I've never been anywhere, and I'm suffering from an apparent veneral disease.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CaptainMike20X6:
in that case, my girlfriend doing me while wearing a TOS miniskirt proves that I Am Not Your Average Trekkie�

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cartman:
I have a big gun.

---

I have a large penis and need no gun.
 

---

Posted by Charles Capps (Member # 9) on :
 
I have a padlock, and also need no gun.
 

---