TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Iraqi WMD trucks turn out to be hydrogen-production facilities
Pages (3): [1] 2 3 »

Iraqi WMD trucks turn out to be hydrogen-production facilities

quote:

LONDON (AFP) Jun 15, 2003 A British inquiry into two trailers found in northern Iraq has found they are not mobile germ warfare labs, but were for the production of hydrogen to fill artillery balloons, the Observer reported Sunday. The London-based weekly newspaper said the conclusion by biological weapons experts was an embarrassment for Prime Minister Tony Blair, who has claimed the discovery of the labs proved that Iraq retained weapons of mass destruction and justified the case for going to war against Saddam Hussein. A British scientist and biological weapons expert, who examined the trailers in Iraq, told the Observer: "They are not mobile germ warfare laboratories. "You could not use them for making biological weapons. They do not even look like them. They are exactly what the Iraqis said they were -- facilities for the production of hydrogen gas to fill balloons." Blair has for weeks been forced to defend himself against allegations by the media that his office embellished intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction to beef up the case for war. Last week he said he would not appear before a parliamentary foreign affairs committee probing the claims, but confirmed he would cooperate with a separate inquiry by parliament's joint intelligence and security committee -- which meets behind closed doors, and whose reports are subject to censorship by Downing Street.

Hmm, so much for Colin Powell's evidence about the mobile WMD factories...

It is everyone's duty to make this a credibility issue in the current US gov't in order to force a change in the PCG.

The time is NOW!

Powell, Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfwitz, Blair, Aznar.. and everyone else.. yall screwed!

Izzy..Yoepus.....why are you not replying to these posts?

I recal that you beleived Powells presentation infront of the UN was "proof" that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

The U.K. and the U.S. just got

quote:

Originally posted by DrummeRaver86 The U.K. and the U.S. just got

Nah nah, more like

But seriously, this is another reason why the U.S. government can't be trusted.

So,what else is new?

quote:

Originally posted by Sand Leaper So,what else is new?

Before you go laying all of the blame on a single administration:

quote:

By Alex Keto A Dow Jones Newswires Analysis WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--Faced with a potential threat from Iraq, U.S. President George W. Bush launched a preemptive strike, and he is now using the same approach with Democrats who question his assertion that the then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction before the war began. Perhaps with one eye on the travails of embattled U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair, who is facing sharp questions at home about whether he misled the public about Iraq's weapons programs, Bush and White House officials have shifted their tactics from simply asserting that Saddam had the weapons to a much more aggressive approach. For the second day in a row Tuesday, Bush said that anyone who seeks to make political hay out of the failure to uncover weapons of mass destruction in Iraq so far would be well advised to exercise caution, and is engaged in nothing less than "revisionist history." "We made it clear to the dictator of Iraq that he must disarm. We asked other nations to join us in seeing to it that he would disarm, and he chose not to do so, so we disarmed him. And I know there's a lot of revisionist history now going on, but one thing is certain, he is no longer a threat to the free world, and the people of Iraq are free," Bush said. On Monday, Bush said that Iraq posed a clear threat to the security of the U.S. in 1991, 1998 and 2003, and in all cases, the U.S. acted. The dates correspond to the first Persian Gulf War, the military strikes launched by former President Bill Clinton after Saddam kicked out weapons inspectors and the most recent war against Iraq. The point, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said, is that U.S. concerns over Iraq's weapons programs didn't begin with the current administration and haven't been solely a Republican concern. Both Republican and Democratic administrations have been highly worried about Saddam's weapons programs for over a decade. In fact, during the Clinton administration, former Secretary of Defense William Cohen held up a five-pound bag of sugar during a television interview and said that a similar amount of anthrax could devastate a U.S. city. Cohen made the remarks when the Clinton administration was trying to build support for military action against Iraq in 1998. While Cohen and other Clinton administration officials may be out of office, a number of potential critics in the House and the Senate are not. However, Fleischer indicated the administration is not worried about it. "I would suggest to you, go back and read any number of speeches given by members of Congress, Democrat and Republican alike, in 1998 when the Congress passed, wisely passed, the Regime Change Act for Iraq, and you'll find floor speech after floor speech that talks about Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction," Fleischer said. Any lawmakers who want to criticize the current administration's reading of the intelligence material should first make sure they didn't claim in 1998 that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, Fleischer said. "Members of Congress said it was certainty then. The previous administration said it was certainty then. And unless somebody thinks again that Saddam Hussein threw out the weapons inspectors, and after he threw out the weapons inspectors he got rid of his weapons of mass destruction and didn't tell anybody... Saddam Hussein did, indeed, have weapons of mass destruction leading up to the war," Fleischer said. The fact that such weapons have proven elusive in the two months since the war ended proves nothing, Fleischer said, adding the president has confidence the weapons not only exist but also they will be found at some point. "Nothing's changed. You heard the president say it many, many times. Yes, that's what the president said then. It's what he believes now, of course," Fleischer said. Despite the aggressive stance of the White House, Fleischer insisted the administration has no objection to congressional hearings into what administration officials knew about Saddam's weapons. "The president has welcomed these hearings," Fleischer said.

That article is such a piece of crap. Yes, the Clinton administration was worried because Saddam HAD weapons of mass destruction. Notice the past tense here. WMDs are not very stable substances and can't be kept functional for long, at least not in Iraqi conditions. Regardless of that, the worry of the american government about Iraqi possessed WMDs is not the issue at all. The real issue is the fact US attacked a sovereign country for no direct reason, at the same time lied to the public and presented people with false information, and destroyed any hope for a truly united and multilatteral world. It destroyed 50 years of attempts of global cooperation and reduced the UN to what League of Nations has become during Hitler. Are you forgetting Iraq agreed to allow the UN inspectors unlimited access to all of its facilities? Are you forgetting Hans Blix graded Iraqi cooperation as 4/5? Are you forgetting that the US refused franco-german proposal that called for tripling the number of the UN inspectors? It is normal for the US to worry about weapons possessed by countries that are not in favor of America, but what the US has done surpasses that by far. If the WMDs were the real concern, the US could simply have sent its inspectors through the UN, as Clinton has done, and it could send as much inspectors as it wanted. Saddam Hussein did agree to those conditions. It became obvious then that the WMDs were not a concern at all. It was clear then that the US knew Saddam didn't have any real weapons, and that he was selected because he was an easy target. His regime already suffered much damage from sanctions and his military and technology development was controlled by the US and Britain. On the other hand, his country had vast natural resources combined with an excellent strategical position in the very heart of the middle east. You have to be blind not to see what the real intentions of the US were.

Well, don't know about you, but I'm already turning to www.votetoimpeach.org

Re: Re: Iraqi WMD trucks turn out to be hydrogen-production facilities

quote:

Originally posted by Vesa This is indeed a valuable piece of news because it now looks like Bush, Powell and Blair don't have any evidence of Saddam's acute WMD threat.

Wait, they NEVER had evidence.....

Re: Re: Re: Iraqi WMD trucks turn out to be hydrogen-production facilities

quote:

Originally posted by DrummeRaver86 Wait, they NEVER had evidence.....

Rather, they claimed they had evidence, but they never showed it.

ah man, remember all those threads where me and others used to say that the US were full of BS ???

quote:

Originally posted by ahlamalek ah man, remember all those threads where me and others used to say that the US were full of BS ???

The true dumbass in all of this is Saddam ... why put up all the initial barriers when he had nothing? He should have just told the weapons inspectors to strip his country bare and demanded more inspectors. Why even get to the point where resolution 1441 was necessary ... something that was to be expected of a madman.

buddy he was pleading that his country didn't have shit from day1... he asked for more inspectors, he opened all the doors etc etc

what do you want, the US really wanted to go in there, they were playing deaf.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider The true dumbass in all of this is Saddam ... why put up all the initial barriers when he had nothing? He should have just told the weapons inspectors to strip his country bare and demanded more inspectors. Why even get to the point where resolution 1441 was necessary ... something that was to be expected of a madman.

I think he's the smart one. He's alive, somewhere there with millions, smarter then any US intelligence ( which by the way have the best technological equipmente ) yet, they weren't able to cath him, been away from him probably just yards hehehe..

Anyways.. those that supported war, can you atleast show your face and be humble about it?!?!? j/k.

quote:

Originally posted by ahlamalek buddy he was pleading that his country didn't have shit from day1... he asked for more inspectors, he opened all the doors etc etc what do you want, the US really wanted to go in there, they were playing deaf.

Not quite day 1 ... he resisted inspectors until 1441, he refused interviews with scientists, he refused the U-2 flights ... he always waited until the last minute when tensions were at a breaking point.

yes but put yourself in his shoes, you know that the US are coming to invade either way, that he has to hide his armies and keep his strategy secret to the invader, what are you gonna do? granted, it wouldn't had change the outcome of the war, but wouldn't you protect the little bit of "surprise" you may have?

also, don't forget he's a political figure, he doesn't want to loose his face in front of his population.

anyways, i could go on, but basically he saw the end coming and tried to postpone it as much as he could, typical leader strategy.

quote:

Originally posted by ahlamalek yes but put yourself in his shoes, you know that the US are coming to invade either way, that he has to hide his armies and keep his strategy secret to the invader, what are you gonna do? granted, it wouldn't had change the outcome of the war, but wouldn't you protect the little bit of "surprise" you may have? also, don't forget he's a political figure, he doesn't want to loose his face in front of his population. anyways, i could go on, but basically he saw the end coming and tried to postpone it as much as he could, typical leader strategy.

I dunno ... what surprise, hehe he had no chemical weapons armed with his troops (at least at the time of the invasion). I don't see any possible benefit of maintaining secrecy when it came to this issue. If the UN had given him an A+ grade for cooperatioin with weapons inspectors there's no way the US could have played the imminent wmd threat card. The guy probably thought he could put up another vietnam style fight and rally his people behind his ridiculous regime. I do think that losing face has a lot to do with it. Like any dictator he just can't handle instnaces when his word is not law. As such he has a long history of problems with cooperating 100% with the US and the UN.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 That article is such a piece of crap. Yes, the Clinton administration was worried because Saddam HAD weapons of mass destruction. Notice the past tense here. WMDs are not very stable substances and can't be kept functional for long, at least not in Iraqi conditions. Regardless of that, the worry of the american government about Iraqi possessed WMDs is not the issue at all. The real issue is the fact US attacked a sovereign country for no direct reason, at the same time lied to the public and presented people with false information, and destroyed any hope for a truly united and multilatteral world. It destroyed 50 years of attempts of global cooperation and reduced the UN to what League of Nations has become during Hitler. Are you forgetting Iraq agreed to allow the UN inspectors unlimited access to all of its facilities? Are you forgetting Hans Blix graded Iraqi cooperation as 4/5? Are you forgetting that the US refused franco-german proposal that called for tripling the number of the UN inspectors? It is normal for the US to worry about weapons possessed by countries that are not in favor of America, but what the US has done surpasses that by far. If the WMDs were the real concern, the US could simply have sent its inspectors through the UN, as Clinton has done, and it could send as much inspectors as it wanted. Saddam Hussein did agree to those conditions. It became obvious then that the WMDs were not a concern at all. It was clear then that the US knew Saddam didn't have any real weapons, and that he was selected because he was an easy target. His regime already suffered much damage from sanctions and his military and technology development was controlled by the US and Britain. On the other hand, his country had vast natural resources combined with an excellent strategical position in the very heart of the middle east. You have to be blind not to see what the real intentions of the US were.

This has got to be one of the biggest pieces of mindless drivel I've ever read. Not once did you offer anything factual to substantiate your OPINION.

Occrider--you are absolutely correct. If Saddam had simply come forward and offered hard, factual evidence that he had destroyed WMD's that FACTUAL evidence prooved he had, then perhaps the outcome would've been a bit different. The WMD's were/are hidden. That means that if he did have them, they would be in hard to find places. Did you ever stop to think that maybe a few of the 5,000 individually targeted military sites may have possibly contained WMD's that were destroyed by the shock and awe campaign?

The point is, there was no point giving inspectors more time. The administration was correct in asserting that if Iraq had any intentions of giving up their weapons program, they would've done it like other previously hostile regimes that wanted to comply and not given a 12,000 page diversionary document that was WIDELY known to be full of shit. Hans Blix even admitted it. And furthermore, the ball was in Saddam's court to prove he had destroyed said weapons. He didn't offer the proof. The burden of proof was on him, and he did not comply within a LONG timetable. 1441 gave him about 6 months on top of the 12 years he had already had, not to mention the 4+ years since 1998 when inspectors were kicked out of the country and nobody could see what Hussein was doing?

Don't let your hatred for the current U.S. administration cloud your mind in to defending a brutal dictator who opressed millions of people and tortured thousands of others.

- The issue here is..
A country, cant reveal all the secrets it has, for their own good in case of a war or defense strategies. The USA was asking for Iraq to be Naked.. and search under their skins and such. I mean, every country would give the limitations, especially if they feel that they are unjustly been searched by a long time enemy, whom all of the sudden came with all this BS that they are a threat. On the IRAQUI leaders view.
The fact is that the US acted unjustly, even with that present situation of the moment. It desobeyed the UN, and UN lost credibility.. how great was that.
Last but not least, even by the way Saddam acted, the US had no right to go to war the way they did with such lack knowledge of intelligence, which wasen't credible at all, sad part is, just now we are starting to see how poor those proofs were.

quote:

This has got to be one of the biggest pieces of mindless drivel I've ever read. Not once did you offer anything factual to substantiate your OPINION.

Oh really? So it's just my oppinion Hans Blix graded Iraqi coopearation to be 4/5 and that the US refused the proposal to triple the number of inspectors? It's my oppinion Collin Powell claimed that hydrogen producing trucks were filled with chemical agents? It's my oppinion US attacked a sovereign country directly against the wishes of the global community? While my conclusion may indeed be an oppinion, the facts that back it up are not.

quote:

Did you ever stop to think that maybe a few of the 5,000 individually targeted military sites may have possibly contained WMD's that were destroyed by the shock and awe campaign?

There'd still be traces of those weapons around. Besides, I doubt the US forces would be so stupid to destroy the only evidence which could prove their clames.

quote:

The point is, there was no point giving inspectors more time. The administration was correct in asserting that if Iraq had any intentions of giving up their weapons program, they would've done it like other previously hostile regimes that wanted to comply and not given a 12,000 page diversionary document that was WIDELY known to be full of shit. Hans Blix even admitted it. And furthermore, the ball was in Saddam's court to prove he had destroyed said weapons. He didn't offer the proof. The burden of proof was on him, and he did not comply within a LONG timetable. 1441 gave him about 6 months on top of the 12 years he had already had, not to mention the 4+ years since 1998 when inspectors were kicked out of the country and nobody could see what Hussein was doing?

How could he have offered proof of having those weapons destroyed? If they were destroyed, that means they were no longer there. So what else could he do except to let inspectors see for themselves that there indeed are no more such weapons around. And that's exactly what he did. Or he could have showed them a pile of rubbish and said that's what remained of the weapons, which is also not much of a proof either.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider The true dumbass in all of this is Saddam ... why put up all the initial barriers when he had nothing? He should have just told the weapons inspectors to strip his country bare and demanded more inspectors. Why even get to the point where resolution 1441 was necessary ... something that was to be expected of a madman.

Well, you know, since the US attack seemed very probable, allowing the U2 spy planes meant he'd be showing the US forces all of his military positions. So in case the US decided to attack anyway, which it did, he'd be powerless to defend himself, as the US bombers would know exactly where to strike in order to destroy his military.

quote:

Originally posted by LiquidX - The issue here is.. A country, cant reveal all the secrets it has, for their own good in case of a war or defense strategies. The USA was asking for Iraq to be Naked.. and search under their skins and such. I mean, every country would give the limitations, especially if they feel that they are unjustly been searched by a long time enemy, whom all of the sudden came with all this BS that they are a threat. On the IRAQUI leaders view. The fact is that the US acted unjustly, even with that present situation of the moment. It desobeyed the UN, and UN lost credibility.. how great was that. Last but not least, even by the way Saddam acted, the US had no right to go to war the way they did with such lack knowledge of intelligence, which wasen't credible at all, sad part is, just now we are starting to see how poor those proofs were.

Once again, the burden of proof wasn't on the US to expose WMDs ... the burden of proof was on Saddam to show the rest of the world that he had disarmed as stipulated by his treaty obligations. Refusing and stalling the agreements upon what weapons inspectors had access to most certainly did not do wonders to his credibility. And if you check the last weapons inspector report submitted by Blix, he stated that he could not rule out the claim that Iraq could have WMDs.

Nothing has changed such that my opinion on events leading up to the war would be any different. I still think force should have been used if he had continued to stall for time, however I do think that more time was needed.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Oh really? So it's just my oppinion Hans Blix graded Iraqi coopearation to be 4/5 and that the US refused the proposal to triple the number of inspectors? It's my oppinion Collin Powell claimed that hydrogen producing trucks were filled with chemical agents? It's my oppinion US attacked a sovereign country directly against the wishes of the global community? While my conclusion may indeed be an oppinion, the facts that back it up are not.

Actually I think the grade was a C.

quote:

There'd still be traces of those weapons around. Besides, I doubt the US forces would be so stupid to destroy the only evidence which could prove their clames.

There were those reports of how the Euphrates river contained definite chemical toxins soon following the invasion.

quote:

How could he have offered proof of having those weapons destroyed? If they were destroyed, that means they were no longer there. So what else could he do except to let inspectors see for themselves that there indeed are no more such weapons around. And that's exactly what he did. Or he could have showed them a pile of rubbish and said that's what remained of the weapons, which is also not much of a proof either.

He should have let the inspectors destroy the WMDs as they had done so in the past

quote:

Well, you know, since the US attack seemed very probable, allowing the U2 spy planes meant he'd be showing the US forces all of his military positions. So in case the US decided to attack anyway, which it did, he'd be powerless to defend himself, as the US bombers would know exactly where to strike in order to destroy his military.

The U2 planes were UN planes not US planes. And as ahlamalek stated, it wouldn't have done much to resist the american invasion anyway. What about the issue with the scientists? What about waiting until 1441 came about?

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