TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- So Where are the Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Pages (2): [1] 2 »
So Where are the Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Published on Sunday, April 13, 2003 by the lndependent/UK
America Targeted 14,000 Sites. So Where are the Weapons of Mass Destruction?
by Andrew Gumbel
They were the reason the United States and Britain were in such a hurry to go to war, the threat the rank-and-file troops feared most.
And yet, after three weeks of war, after the capture of Baghdad and the collapse of the Iraqi government, Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction � those weapons that President Bush, on the eve of hostilities, said were a direct threat to the people of the United States � have still to be identified.
Many influential people � disarmament experts, present and former United Nations arms inspectors, our own Robin Cook � have begun to wonder aloud if the weapons exist at all.
The public surrender of a senior Iraqi scientist could yet backfire against the US and Britain. Lieutenant-General Amer Hammoudi al-Saadi, who handed himself over to US forces yesterday, continued to proclaim that Iraq no longer holds any chemical or biological weapons. He should know: the British-educated chemical expert headed the Iraqi delegation at weapons talks with the United Nations.
The few "discoveries" trumpeted in the media � the odd barrel here, a few dozen shells there � have not been on a scale that could reasonably justify the unprovoked military invasion of a sovereign country, and in most cases have been proven to been no more than rumor, or propaganda, or a mixture of the two.
It could still be that, as American forces advance on Tikrit, Saddam's home town, chemical or biological weapons may be discovered, or even deployed by diehard Iraqi troops. But if the casus belli pleaded by George Bush and Tony Blair turns out to be entirely hollow � and it should be stressed that we can't yet know that � what does it say about their motivations for going to war in the first place? How much deception was involved in talking up the Iraqi threat, and how much self-deception?
Full Article
they must be in Syria by now with Saddam and his crew
Yup American intelligence is always right
Here you go..I think
Well it seems that my hat may be safe after all
yep!
CNN
woohoo!
- I think that the "weapons of mass destruction" are toruing all the "axis of evil" countries, and will eventually escape to outter space, after beating the crap out of everyone.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by IronDragon Here you go..I think Well it seems that my hat may be safe after all |
| quote: |
| There were no chemical or biological weapons with the containerized labs, which measure 20 feet square. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Vesa Debka claims that many of Iraq's WMD are stored in a hard-to-penetrate area called Al-Qaim in North-Western Iraq which has been fiercely defended by Special Republican Guards against American troops. Some of Iraq's WMD were also rumoured to have been hidden in Syria, from which they could quickly moved on Iraqi soil to be launched against Israel. My guess is that the former is true, and the latter may or may not be true. Syrian's leadership were not on good terms with Saddam, so it's not clear if they might have co-operated as a joint defense against Israel. My own opinion is that whether WMD or not, even the mere threat of WMD in Saddam's underground networks was a sufficient reason to topple Saddam. Except that the current Neoconservative invasion was overkill, and done for their own entirely unjustified reasons. A potentially right reason as a pretext, the wrong background reasons,the wrong guys, the wrong methods. PS. I nearly tear out my hair every time I hear Pro-War supporters jubilant after a potential WMD find, as the WMD as a justification to the war IMO misses the point of the invasion entirely. But to each their own. |
AS I have said a few times before. Sadam has had pleanty of time to move anything questionalbe out of the country. If there are no wmd at all then it would explain why Sadam asked Bush for a live televised debate to discuss the "proof" that the US had. THe likely hood of Sadam owning weapons is high tho. He has all the money needed. SMaller courntys with less money have pulled of nukes and other nasty weapons. 
| quote: |
| � Buried laboratories: The buried labs U.S. troops found last week were not the mobile chemical and biological weapons labs one U.S. Army general suspected, CNN Correspondent Ryan Chilcote reported Tuesday. The 11 cargo containers were filled with new laboratory equipment apparently intended to make conventional weapons, said Chief Warrant Officer Monte Gonzalez, the head of the team brought in to examine them. |
So where where WhErE and wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeere !!!!!!!!! are the famously WMD!?!?! .. me wants to know, ooh yes, Id like to know, Oh yes!
They're in Syria now. Obviously, the US forces now must attack Syria to prove that the WMDs do exist. And if they don't find any there, that means they're moved to Iran or Lybia, or maybe even to North Korea. Who knows where they'll be moved after US attacks those countries. France? Russia? China? Or maybe each country in the world was given a single missile with antrax, so they all need to be attacked in order to prevent the horrible imminent attack on the US by some of those countries. Damn, whole world will soon be engaged in an anti-US conspiracy, so the only thing US can now do is to preemptively nuke it.
Is this victory tainted in light of a lack of evidence?
Does the end justify the means?
Hmmmm...
What new lie will be cooked up for the next enemy?
Don't get me wrong, Saddam get what he deserved, in the only way possible. But the absence of WMD is troubling.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 They're in Syria now. Obviously, the US forces now must attack Syria to prove that the WMDs do exist. And if they don't find any there, that means they're moved to Iran or Lybia, or maybe even to North Korea. Who knows where they'll be moved after US attacks those countries. France? Russia? China? Or maybe each country in the world was given a single missile with antrax, so they all need to be attacked in order to prevent the horrible imminent attack on the US by some of those countries. Damn, whole world will soon be engaged in an anti-US conspiracy, so the only thing US can now do is to preemptively nuke it. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 They're in Syria now. Obviously, the US forces now must attack Syria to prove that the WMDs do exist. And if they don't find any there, that means they're moved to Iran or Lybia, or maybe even to North Korea. Who knows where they'll be moved after US attacks those countries. France? Russia? China? Or maybe each country in the world was given a single missile with antrax, so they all need to be attacked in order to prevent the horrible imminent attack on the US by some of those countries. Damn, whole world will soon be engaged in an anti-US conspiracy, so the only thing US can now do is to preemptively nuke it. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by fr0st I agree with you even the threat of WOMD is reason enough to remove him. We should have never even had a reason to begin with. If he would have been 100percent cooperative with the inspecters and the UN and the US none of this would have happened. Instead he wanted to keep fucking arround... |
LOL@drug_tito's comment
ok, lets say Syria took in Iraq's WMDs, aint there satellite imaging at the US military's disposal to check the transferring of such material did take place? I mean, its not something you can put into orange crates and drive along, they must be transported with great care.
And another question was, what exactly was Syria's relationship with Iraq prior to the war?
| quote: |
| Originally posted by tor8024 let me remind you to the fact that according to international law (and i imagine any democratic country), the one who accuses somebody has to come up with proof, not the one who is accused. in other words, it was wrong of the us to say sadam "you have weapons of mass destruction at your disposal, now prove us wrong!" in the first place. besides, if the reason for going to war was a lack of cooperation from Irak, why was the operation called "iraqi freedom"? you must admit there are some flaws in US arguments.. |
| quote: |
| So some of Saddam's WMD were in Syria in the first place, but the Israeli and American Spec-Ops were active on the Iraqi-Syrian border to prevent them from entering Iraq. That's why those WMD were not used, and still remain in Syria |
- IM still asking myself, where are the weapons?!?! .. Didn't the US have the places allready as "there are the WMD"??...mmm looks like the politics of Bush tours the "war on terrorism" is far more then that.. crap people are blind, and Im just here sitting seen things evolve, it's just amazing. The Media is amazing too, and if you go back to "the days" .. there'll be sooo many things to bring up and prove everyone wrong.
.. DID YOU GUYS KNOW THAT THE US HELPED SADDAM HUSSEIN TAKE POWER ON IRAQ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! .. I guess you guys didn't eeehhh...
| quote: |
| Originally posted by LiquidX .. DID YOU GUYS KNOW THAT THE US HELPED SADDAM HUSSEIN TAKE POWER ON IRAQ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! .. I guess you guys didn't eeehhh... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider Helped the baath party yes ... like I said before though, if you're surprised by this than perhaps you should read up on the reasons why. Cold war politics at its best. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Vesa The Debka news about Saddam's WMD in Syria are likely to be partly (or even completely) just propaganda. Debka is not a reliable website. Syria's own chemical WMD are hardly as big a risk as Saddam's potentially more sophisticated WMD. So the Neocons' concern about WMD in Syria is mainly just a pretext. Iraq was attacked first because it was the softest target to start long-term military operations in the core of the Middle-East (as proven by the news about American military bases to be set up in Iraq). Besides, Saddam's cruelty and his WMD were real concerns, so the Neocons had an excellent justification to rally many Western patriots behind the war (the Neocons' own war objectives in the PNAC document have not been discussed nearly as much in public). Moreover, the intelligence reports indicated that most Iraqis would not be willing to fight for Saddam, and anyway, the Iraqi military was still severely weakened from the First Gulf War and the economic sanctions, so the Neocons considered Iraq as an easy kill. My guess is that Hezbollah and Hamas are the Neocons' main targets in the Middle-East. These groups don't have WMD as far as I know, but the Neocons want to eliminate them to shape the region according to very small American and Israeli cliques, whose ideas have not been widely approved in either country. The Neocons are now in a hurry to mop up before the next Presidential Elections, so they may concentrate on Hezbollah and Hamas, and temporarily forget the WMD question. Even if the WMD may not be the most important thing on the Neocons' list, the US Government has been forced to send great numbers of its own inspectors to look for WMD in Iraq. This is because the US is apparently coming under some criticism to present the smoking gun to the Anti-War countries. My own guess is that Bush indeed can show Saddam's hidden WMD, which will silence the Anti-War Camp (unfortunately). Who knows ... the American soldiers may already have found WMD, and the US Government is just waiting for a suitable moment to release the news to the public. Keeping the suspense for some time (whether voluntary or not) will multiply their popularity, and humiliate the Anti-War Camp, who may be stepping directly into a trap when pressing the smoking gun issue. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by fr0st Dude you fucking rock your post has to be one of the most intelligent unbiased post i have ever read.... |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Vesa
Iraq was attacked first because it was the softest target to start long-term military operations in the core of the Middle-East (as proven by the news about American military bases to be set up in Iraq).
I agree 100% with your point. It all started with Afghanistan and this whole 'Crusades' will likely go on for a long time to come. Until someone wise replaces BUSH!. Hopefully the american people will come to their sense and not elect this foo!
And there were no WMD's.
My own guess is that Bush indeed can show Saddam's hidden WMD, which will silence the Anti-War Camp (unfortunately).
Keep guessing and keeping waiting. there will be no weapons of mass destructions. I heard on Rumsfeld talking at a press conference saying that they don't expect to find Any! WMD's. Only with the help of Iraqi people will they find those WMD's. hahahahaha...wat a load of crap! (btw i was watching CNN when i heard the news.)
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Vesa The Debka news about Saddam's WMD in Syria are likely to be partly (or even completely) just propaganda. Debka is not a reliable website. |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.