TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Iraq to use Chemical WMD in war...u morons
Pages (6): « 1 2 3 4 5 [6]

quote:

Originally posted by Nalin well except of course Blair who's been a yes-man his whole political life.

you need to have a clue to post things like that
when you've got one, come back, we'd love to see it

Re: OK I AM FOR A GOV CHANGE BUT GEEZ THIS LAYS IT DOWN

Phew that's a lot to cover, I'm at work so I'll have to go in bits and peices, but I'll try to address the entire article eventually:

quote:

Originally posted by Mental Exodus Lie No. 1: �My fellow citizens, events in Iraq have now reached the final days of decision.� The decision for war with Iraq was made long ago, the intervening time having been spent in an attempt to create the political climate in which US troops could be deployed for an attack. According to press reports, most recently March 16 in the Baltimore Sun, at one of the first National Security Council meetings of his presidency, months before the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, Bush expressed his determination to overthrow Saddam Hussein and his willingness to commit US ground troops to an attack on Iraq for that purpose. All that was required was the appropriate pretext�supplied by September 11, 2001.

I think that it's innacurate to state that war was the overall objective as opposed to change. I think that Bush has long been frustrated with the situation of the status quo in Iraq since inspectors were banned in 1998, and came to the decision to use force if necessary. I think that it's important to note that committment to use war as a method to adopt change isn't synonymous with war being the objective, change is still the objective. This is what fueled Bush's insistence that weapons inspectors be readmitted to Iraq and his decision to use force if inspections fail to disarm Iraq.

quote:

Lie No. 2: �For more than a decade, the United States and other nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war.� The US-led United Nations regime of sanctions against Iraq, combined with �no-fly� zones and provocative weapons inspections, is one of brutal oppression. The deliberate withholding of food, medical supplies and other vital necessities is responsible for the death of more than a million Iraqis, half of them children. Two UN officials who headed the oil-for-food program resigned in protest over the conditions created in Iraq by the sanctions. The CIA used the inspectors as a front, infiltrating agents into UNSCOM, the original inspections program. The CIA�s aim was to spy on Iraq�s top officials and target Saddam Hussein for assassination.

How were the no-fly zones brutal oppression? They were designed to protect the kurds from Iraqi attack, and that's oppressing the CITIZENS of Iraq? Last I knew, Iraqi civilians didn't go galavanting around the country going on joy rides in military jets. Also I don't think that they drive their personal SAM batteries to the no fly zone and take pot shots at US/British jets while on a picnic. If you can prove otherwise than yes I guess it is oppressive. Brutal however? I don't think so. So the United Nations is a "regime" now? Everybody holds it in such high regard today but back then when it had imposed sanctions on Iraq that were enforced by the US it was a "regime"? I like how blame is placed on the UN for the failed humanitarian conditions of Iraq rather than placing blame where it truly belongs ... on Iraq. Obviously these sanctions didn't hurt Iraq enough from building up their military after the war. If a country doesn't care about its own citizens how is the rest of the world supposed to be held accountable? Also aren't weapons inspectors supposed to be provocative? It seems counter-intuitive to have docile, meek inspectors. I would like to see some sources on the CIA issue. If the CIA were plotting to assassinate him, it would be considered illegal. President Gerald Ford issued a ban on assassinations of heads of state in 1976. Executive order No 12333 declares: "No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination." I saw news reports of ex-CIA officials who complained about not getting the go ahead to assassinate Saddam Hueissen directly after the gulf war despite having hte opportunity to do so.

Ok back to work! To be continued later

quote:

Originally posted by Nalin The US is there for US's and Israel's hidden, conspirist motives.

i'm curios, what conspiricy is that?

quote:

Heck, for once not even yes-man Britain (who has historically followed the US through all stupidity) supports the US as reflected by Blair's cabinet - well except of course Blair who's been a yes-man his whole political life.

dont lie please

"Britain's House of Commons backed Prime Minister Tony Blair's policy on Iraq, voting in favor of using "all means necessary" to disarm Saddam Hussein."

"Lawmakers voted 412 to 149 to use "all means necessary" for disarming Iraq. Before that, they voted 396 to 217 to defeat an amendment by Labor rebels that declared the case for war "has not yet been established."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81403,00.html

sounds like a majority to me

TIESTO14 WAS BANNED!!!!!!

HAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHHHAHAHAH

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

Its about time...well... its about the second time he has proved his way of thinking is not liked in here.

I even saw him in this forum... reading all the posts that he cant answer becuase of his idiotic nature!

Tiesto14.... I know you are dying to answer us with more profanity and yelling... but you CANT!!!!

LOOOOOOOL

Back! With another two comments.

quote:

Lie No. 3: �The Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage. It has uniformly defied Security Council resolutions demanding full disarmament...� Iraq has never �defied� a Security Council resolution since the end of the Persian Gulf War in 1991. It has generally cooperated with the dictates of the UN body, although frequently under protest or with reservations, because many of the resolutions involve gross violations of Iraqi sovereignty. From 1991 to 1998, UN inspectors supervised the destruction of the vast bulk of the chemical and biological weapons, as well as delivery systems, which Iraq accumulated (with the assistance of the US) during the Iran-Iraq war, and they also destroyed all of Iraq�s facilities for making new weapons.

It has defied UN resolutions in the sense that it has failed to fully comply with them. They have defied UN resolutions in that it has taken 11 years and they still hadn�t completely disarmed. They didn�t come out and openly �defy� them but by not cooperating they are acting in the spirit of defiance. Yes they have �generally� cooperated with the dictates of the UN body except for the part about disarming! Gross violations of Iraqi sovereignty??? Well if the UN resolutions are such gross violations to Iraqi sovereignty maybe they shouldn�t have agreed to them when they signed the truce agreement in 1991. I don�t understand what the author is trying to convey? It seems like he�s criminalizing the destruction of Iraq�s chemical and biological weapons! At any rate if Iraq was in complete compliance of UN resolutions why did the UN have to fight Iraq to readmit inspectors, then get him to concede to all the demands of inspectors, then issue subsequent resolutions demanding full compliance or face consequences?

quote:

Lie No. 4: �Peaceful efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime have failed again and again because we are not dealing with peaceful men.� According to the Washington Post of March 16, referring to the 1991-1998 inspection period: �[U]nder UN supervision, Iraq destroyed 817 of 819 proscribed medium-range missiles, 14 launchers, 9 trailers and 56 fixed missile-launch sites. It also destroyed 73 of 75 chemical or biological warheads and 163 warheads for conventional explosives. UN inspectors also supervised destruction of 88,000 filled and unfilled chemical munitions, more than 600 tons of weaponized and bulk chemical weapons agents, 4,000 tons of precursor chemicals and 980 pieces of equipment considered key to production of such weapons.�

I posted these facts myself in an earlier thread. I then listed all the unaccounted weapons and criticisms UNSCOM had for Iraq. However the search function is disabled and I'll just post something I found on bbc news:

In early 1999, Unscom gave the Security Council its own assessment of what Iraq had destroyed and what remained unaccounted for.
The US and UK want a full explanation of what happened to the following:

� 360 tonnes of chemical warfare agents, including 1.5 tonnes of VX nerve agent;
� 3,000 tonnes of chemical precursors (which are developed into chemical weapons) including 300 tonnes uniquely used for VX.

The 1999 Unscom report said:
"According to Iraq, 1.5 tonnes of VX were discarded unilaterally by dumping on the ground. Traces of one VX-degradation product and a chemical known as a VX-stabilizer were found in the samples taken from the VX dump sites. A quantified assessment is not possible."


Britain and America want to know about :
� Growth media for 20,000 litres of biological warfare agents. Any Iraqi claims that this will have degenerated will not be accepted as mustard gas found in shells in 1997 was active;
� Shells for use in biological warfare - 20,000 are missing say the British, 15,000 say the Americans;

Unscom said in 1999:
"The commission has little or no confidence in Iraq's accounting for proscribed items for which physical evidence is lacking or inconclusive, documentation is sparse or nonexistent, and coherence and consistency is lacking.
These include, for example: quantities and types of munitions available for biological weapons (BW) filling; quantities and types of munitions filled with BW agents; quantities and type of bulk agents produced; quantities of bulk agents used in filling; quantities of bulk agents destroyed; quantities of growth media acquired for the programme; and quantities of growth media used/consumed.
In addition, the commission has no confidence that all bulk agents have been destroyed; that no BW munitions or weapons remain in Iraq; and that a BW capability does not still exist in Iraq."


Washington and London demand disclosure on:
� 6,000 chemical warfare bombs.
Unscom said:
The commission has accepted the destruction of about 34,000 munitions on the basis of multiple sources, including physical evidence, documents provided by Iraq etc. However, it has not been possible to achieve a numerical accounting of destroyed munitions due to heavy bomb damage of the CW storage facilities, where these munitions had been stored during the Gulf war. The destruction of about 2,000 unfilled munitions remain uncertain, 550 filled munitions remain unaccounted for.

To be continued ... 16 more to go ... sigghhhhh

QUOTE: NALIN
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
It has been known that Saddam Hussein has brutalized his people for some 30+ years (ie. western countries had footage of the executions and tortures administered by his regime). Where was the US then? Where was the importance of Iraqi liberty/freedom then?

The US is there for US's and Israel's hidden, conspirist motives.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes we have reports of bad treatment. Yes we didn�t do anything about it then. Yes the U.S. has supposedly �hidden � motives.

HOWEVER! U must understand what is happening globally to understand what is happening now in a full context. (THE MOTIVES ARENT HIDDEN) I could go into another in depth article or re post very large articles I have written which people don�t read anyway SO for the sake of sumin it all up I will say this.

�����Oil has literally made foreign and security policy for decades. Just since the turn of this century, it has provoked the division of the Middle East after World War I; aroused Germany and Japan to extend their tentacles beyond their borders; the Arab Oil Embargo; Iran versus Iraq; the Gulf War. This is all clear.���������
-- Secretary of Energy, Bill Richardson, December 9, 1999

EARTH is NOW at a time of PEAK oil production. This means from here on out there will be less and less of it for us. This also means it costs way more. The peak in oil production for many nations has already been reached!!!!! It is estimated that middle easts oil peak will be around the year 2011. That being said it becomes clear why we are there. The investment now will pay off for the US later as the change over from oil to other forms of energy will cost them less.

To really get a good idea of what im talking about check out.
http://dieoff.com/page133.htm
This is only one example site, there are many more which state mostly the same figures.

Other factors do play interesting roles like weapons and ill treatment but these can be found throughout the world and we don�t do anything . This is only my opinion and yes I do know it�s a .org site. I couldn�t find any others on hand.

QUOTE: occrider
----------------------------------------------
How were the no-fly zones brutal oppression?
---------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------
So the United Nations is a "regime" now?
-------------------------------------
I do agree that it is wordy in a couple of places and I should have edited it or noted it. MY BAD. However its not my place to edit.

----------------------------------------------
I would like to see some sources on the CIA issue. If the CIA were plotting to assassinate him, it would be considered illegal
----------------------------------------------------

Illegal or not it can be done. Im looking for sources but finding any with cred is far from easy on the net. Ill ask around.

I C u are replying to the whole thing, ill wait until your finished to respond further in order to keep things orderly.

on a side note, anyone else hear that Halliburton were the first company given contracts to dig for oil?

quote:

Originally posted by Mental Exodus I C u are replying to the whole thing, ill wait until your finished to respond further in order to keep things orderly.

You might be waiting a while hehe ... after I do a bunch of research or talk about Iraq/US a bunch I get bored and put things off until later. Just feel free to reply and I'll reply to that when I finish posting everything I'd like to say about the original article.

quote:

Lie No. 5: �The Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.� The Washington Post article cited above noted that CIA officials were concerned �about whether administration officials have exaggerated intelligence in a desire to convince the American public and foreign governments that Iraq is violating United Nations prohibitions against chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons and long-range missile systems.� The article quoted �a senior intelligence analyst� who said the inspectors could not locate weapons caches �because there may not be much of a stockpile.� Former British Foreign Minister Robin Cook, who resigned from the Blair government Monday in protest over the decision to go to war without UN authorization, declared, �Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term.� Even if Iraq is concealing some remnants of its 1980s arsenal, these would hardly deserve Bush�s lurid description, since they are primitive and relatively ineffective. �Some of the most lethal weapons ever devised� are those being unleashed by the United States on Iraq: cruise missiles, smart bombs, fuel-air explosives, the 10,000-pound �daisy-cutter� bomb, the 20,000-pound MOAB just tested in Florida. In addition, the US has explicitly refused to rule out the use of nuclear weapons.

Well part of my rebuttal is to see again what I said for lie 4. Has Bush taken an exaggerated stance in portraying Iraq�s chemical/biological weapons program? That I don�t disagree with, however, I do believe that Iraq does have some sort of WOMD program in place. And although they �MAY� not have much and although they �PROBABLY� don�t have any in the common sense of term (meaning they do have some stockpiles), that�s a lot of maybes when they shouldn�t have ANY according to UN resolutions. The UN resolutions don�t say it�s ok for him to have 50 chemical warheads but 500 is a no no. The past 11 years have been about him not having much but still having some and the issue now is for him to have none. As for our militarily superiority, that�s a separate issue, it has nothing to do with the disarmament of Iraq. We aren�t prohibited from having lethal weapons and we most certainly aren�t going to use WOMDs. That whole nuclear weapons issue is silly. It�s meant to be a threat to Saddam to not use his womds, but any sane person will concur that the US will not use any kind of WOMDs when the whole issue is about WOMDs � that�s simply ludicrous.

quote:

Lie No. 6: �[Iraq] has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of Al Qaeda.� No one, not even US government, seriously believes there is a significant connection between the Islamic fundamentalists and the secular nationalist Ba�athist regime in Iraq, which have been mortal enemies for decades. The continued assertion of an Al Qaeda-Iraq alliance is a desperate attempt to link Saddam Hussein to the September 11 attacks. It also serves to cover up the responsibility of American imperialism for sponsoring Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. The forces that now comprise Al Qaeda were largely recruited, trained, armed and set in motion by the CIA itself, as part of a long-term policy of using Islamic fundamentalists as a weapon against left-wing movements in the Muslim countries. This policy was pursued from the 1950s and was escalated prior to and during the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan, which ended in 1989. Osama bin Laden himself was part of the CIA-backed mujaheddin forces in Afghanistan before he turned against Washington in the 1990s.

With part of this I agree. I think that there is very little affiliation between Al Qaeda and Iraq. But do I think that Iraq has aided, trained, and harbored terrorists? Yes. Al Qaeda isn�t the only terrorist group on the block. I�m sure Saddam wouldn�t hesistate for a second to sponsor terrorist groups against the US or Israel. As a matter of fact, Iraq�s pledge of money to suicide bomber families is a form of support right there.

quote:

Lie No. 7: �America tried to work with the United Nations to address this threat because we wanted to resolve the issue peacefully.� The Bush administration went to the United Nations because it wanted UN sanction for military action and it wanted UN member states to cough up funds for postwar operations, along the lines of its financial shakedown operation for the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Bush�s most hawkish advisors, such as Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Cheney, initially opposed going to the UN because they did not want diplomacy to slow down the drive to war. They only agreed after Secretary of State Colin Powell argued that the pace of the US military buildup in the Persian Gulf gave enough time to get the UN to rubber-stamp the war.

That�s pure speculation. If this guy is so sure and has evidence that we only went through the UN for military action and funds I would like to see the evidence that this guy used. It�s funny how he knew from the get go that there would be war for sure when everybody else was unsure. Again sources would be appreciated. Nobody can say for sure that the US would have completely backed down if weapons inspectors came back with glowing reports praising Iraqi cooperation showing the entire world that they have indeed disarmed beyond a doubt.

sorry, but I couldn't contain myself

quote:

Originally posted by tiesto14 well reports are going on from all over that Iraq plans to use Chemical weapons of mass destruction on US troops in their warheads....NOW France are saying they will join the US and UK if this happens.... So now what are you anti war liberal fucks going to say??...are you still going to float around in your self-righteaous ether thinking your so smart that Iraq doesnt have the weapons??/....... SOOOOOO when Iraq uses these weapons i feel you ALL owe Bush an apology.....you morons we where right.....

Wow! An article from way back when I sided with the Bush administration ! Thanks for dredging this up ... it brings back the memories. Let this make no mistake, I tried to give this administration the benefit of the doubt and reason. Yet my demands for reserved judgment until we got more information only yielded unbridled anger once we got that information. I admit that I was wrong, but I can honestly say that I can't find logical flaws with my prior reasoning (with the information I had at the time).

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Wow! An article from way back when I sided with the Bush administration ! Thanks for dredging this up ... it brings back the memories. Let this make no mistake, I tried to give this administration the benefit of the doubt and reason. Yet my demands for reserved judgment until we got more information only yielded unbridled anger once we got that information. I admit that I was wrong, but I can honestly say that I can't find logical flaws with my prior reasoning (with the information I had at the time).

It's cool, Occ. We all make mistakes, bro!

At least you're man enough to admit yours, which is definitely not something that I can say about everyone.

Re: Iraq to use Chemical WMD in war...u morons

quote:

Originally posted by tiesto14 well reports are going on from all over that Iraq plans to use Chemical weapons of mass destruction on US troops in their warheads....NOW France are saying they will join the US and UK if this happens.... So now what are you anti war liberal fucks going to say??...are you still going to float around in your self-righteaous ether thinking your so smart that Iraq doesnt have the weapons??/....... SOOOOOO when Iraq uses these weapons i feel you ALL owe Bush an apology.....you morons we where right.....

sorry but I just couldn't help laughing at this


(again)

Re: Iraq to use Chemical WMD in war...u morons

quote:

Originally posted by tiesto14 well reports are going on from all over that Iraq plans to use Chemical weapons of mass destruction on US troops in their warheads....NOW France are saying they will join the US and UK if this happens.... So now what are you anti war liberal fucks going to say??...are you still going to float around in your self-righteaous ether thinking your so smart that Iraq doesnt have the weapons??/....... SOOOOOO when Iraq uses these weapons i feel you ALL owe Bush an apology.....you morons we where right.....

LOL

You are now the laughing stock of the world. You neo-con fuck. That's what my liberal ass says.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.