|
WMDs found in IRAQ (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
They are reminants from the Iraq / Iran war and are munitions that we knew Saddam had and we knew he destroyed |
And if he had "destroyed" them, then we wouldn't have people finding them would we?
| quote: | We're not just talking an old Sarin shell here and there. No less than 500 chemical weapons have been found since 2003, according to a recently declassified defense department intelligence report. The weapons are of the mustard gas and Sarin nerve gas variety...nasty stuff.
So why isn't this major breaking news?
Because the WMDs are said to be manufactured before 1991....not in recent years. Therefore, the mainstream media and the Democrats don't count those. For some reason, they want WMDs made in recent years. Evidently the left likes their mustard gas just a little fresher. But that's not the point. This stuff can kill ... but to the left it's harmless.
All that matters is Saddam Hussein was lying when he said he got rid of all his WMDs. He clearly did not. Also, what do you suppose would have happened had Hussein sold some of these WMD's to Islamic terrorists? It wouldn't have been pretty. But this story will be ignored...and the leftist propaganda machine that says Saddam Hussein wasn't a threat will roll on.
|
| quote: | | And in case you're under any delusions about the potency of these chemical weapons: |
From the memo:
| quote: | --Pre-Gulf War Iraqi chemical weapons could be sold on the black market. Use of these weapons by terrorists or insurgent groups would have implications for our Coalition forces in Iraq. The possibility of use outside Iraq cannot be ruled out.
--The most likely munitions remaining are sarin and mustard-filled projectiles.
--The purity of the agent inside the munitions depends on many factors, including the manufacturing process, potential additives, and environmental storage conditions. While agents degrade over time, chemical warfare agents remain hazardous and potentially lethal. |
| quote: | | Rationalise it how you want guys, but these are not "weapons of mass destruction" and they certainly do not justify the invasion of Iraq. |
This is hindsight thinking.
The bottom line is that until a live nuclear warhead covered in Saddam's fingerprints, loaded with so much weaponized uranium is found in pristine condition and pointed directly at Israel, no amount of evidence will be enough to appease the left on this subject. They know that they simply cannot afford to concede anything to the Administration on the war at this point--the risk of fallout is simply too great, what with mid-term elections coming up and all. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
Well, they were right after all...
>>Document<<
So now that we know this to be fact, when does the apologizing start?
I doubt we'll hear anything of the kind. |
When were these weapons made and did we already know about them?
ie. had they already been declared following the First Gulf War between Iraq and the West???
Or are these weapons that Saddam had made in the time weapons inspections finished? |
|
|
| George Smiley |
We knew that Saddam had a large stock pile of Sarin...
Cos he told us!! |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
| quote: | Originally posted by stevieboy32808
How do you guys explain this video?
|
When did that interview take place? I might have to check out that book. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by stevieboy32808
How do you guys explain this video? |
Don't worry.
The Left has already written this guy off for whatever reason that happen to float in their coffee that morning...
A legitimate general of Saddam's telling us he HAD THEM, tells us WHEN and WHAT they did, and the Left shrugs it off???
Apparently the weapons have to buried in their own front yard with a really big red arrow sign saying, "Look HERE".
"Degraded" doesn't mean "useless" either so let's not split hairs on definitions just to confuse the issue.
The danger is/was that these could have easily been sold or found by terrorist groups to use; 'degraded' or not.
Lest we forget:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin_...he_Tokyo_subway
The only reason more people weren't killed is because that stunt was barely pulled off by a bunch of amateurs.
The possiblity of this happening again is very real.
Or what about this list of 10 from the White House that have been thwarted:
| quote: |
White House lists 10 foiled attacks
Wednesday, February 15, 2006; Posted: 10:56 a.m. EST (15:56 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush said Thursday that the U.S.-led global war on terror had "weakened" al Qaeda and cited as proof international efforts that he said had thwarted a terrorist plot to attack Los Angeles.
Members of an al Qaeda affiliate in Asia had planned to crash a commercial airplane into the U.S. Bank Tower in Los Angeles in 2002, Bush said.
In a speech at the National Guard Memorial Building, Bush gave more details on the purported plot.
It was one of a list of 10 terrorist plots that U.S. authorities first released in October 2005.
The list and details from the White House:
1. West Coast airliner plot:
In 2002 the United States disrupted a plot to use shoe bombs to hijack a commercial airliner to attack the tallest building in Los Angeles. The plot was "set in motion" by Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the September 11 attacks.
"Rather than use Arab hijackers, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed sought out young men from Southeast Asia whom he believed would not arouse as much suspicion," Bush said.
2. East Coast airliner plot:
In mid-2003 the United States and a partner disrupted a plot to use hijacked commercial airplanes to attack targets on the East Coast of the United States.
3. The Jose Padilla plot:
In May 2002 the United States disrupted a plot that involved blowing up apartment buildings in the United States. One of the alleged plotters, Jose Padilla, allegedly discussed the possibility of using a "dirty bomb" inside the United States. Bush has designated him an "enemy combatant."
4. 2004 British urban targets plot:
In mid-2004 the United States and partners disrupted a plot to bomb urban targets in Britain.
5. 2003 Karachi plot:
In spring 2003 the United States and a partner disrupted a plot to attack westerners at several targets in Karachi, Pakistan.
6. Heathrow Airport plot:
In 2003 the United States and several partners disrupted a plot to attack London's Heathrow Airport using hijacked commercial airliners. The planning for this alleged attack was undertaken by a major operational figure in the September 11, 2001, attacks.
7. 2004 Britain plot:
In the spring of 2004 the United States and partners, using a combination of law enforcement and intelligence resources, disrupted a plot to conduct large-scale bombings in Britain.
8. 2002 Persian Gulf shipping plot:
In late 2002 and 2003 the United States and a partner nation disrupted a plot by al Qaeda operatives to attack ships in the Persian Gulf.
9. 2002 Strait of Hormuz plot:
In 2002 the United States and partners disrupted a plot to attack ships in the Strait of Hormuz, the entrance to the Persian Gulf from the Indian Ocean.
10. 2003 tourist site plot:
In 2003 the United States and a partner nation disrupted a plot to attack a tourist site outside the United States. The White House did not list what site that was.
|
I know, I know.
They didn't happen so they don't count right?
And yes I know they've been finding stuff since day 2 in Iraq; that's not the point.
The point is, there are STILL weapons out there that need to be found.
WE need to find them before THEY do, so no, I'm not going to appologize for these facts however, when will the Left realize these threats to be real.
Do you guys really need to go through another 9/11 to snap out of whatever is glazing your eyes down there?
Hell, here in Canada we're just waking up because we though the same thing, "It'll never happen to us"... |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| When were those weapons refered to in your original post made and had they already been declared? |
|
|
| stevieboy32808 |
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
When did that interview take place? I might have to check out that book. |
I know for fact that it took place sometime earlier this year. I forget the exact month.
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
"Degraded" doesn't mean "useless" either so let's not split hairs on definitions just to confuse the issue. The danger is/was that these could have easily been sold or found by terrorist groups to use; 'degraded' or not. |
I agree except that I just finished watching NBC evening news and they concluded that the age of those weapons are not significant enough to consider this a new find. The weapons are dated shells from the 80's Iraq-Iran war. The WMD's as suggested by the President was what he believed to Saddam to be producing right now and not 20 years ago. The guy who brought this up, Senator Rick Santorum, is believed to have propaganda reasons for releasing such dated information. This is a cased closed in my book. |
|
|
| Groundhog Boy |
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
When did that interview take place? I might have to check out that book. |
March 21, 2006 |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by stevieboy32808
I agree except that I just finished watching NBC evening news and they concluded that the age of those weapons are not significant enough to consider this a new find. The weapons are dated shells from the 80's Iraq-Iran war. The WMD's as suggested by the President was what he believed to Saddam to be producing right now and not 20 years ago. The guy who brought this up, Senator Rick Santorum, is believed to have propaganda reasons for releasing such dated information. This is a cased closed in my book. |
While the age of the WMDs may be true...
| quote: |
This is certainly significant, but what they're talking about is old munitions left over from, presumably, before the first Gulf War. This doesn't appear to constitute evidence that Saddam's regime had continued to manufacture chemical weapons in more recent years. What it does demonstrate is that the picture with respect to Iraq's WMDs is much more nuanced than the usual "he didn't have any" mantra. There is no doubt about the fact that Saddam had, and used, chemical and biological weapons. Nor is there any doubt about the fact that he eagerly pursued nuclear weapons. Further, the Iraq Survey Group report says that he had every intention of resuming his programs as soon as the coast was clear and the U.N. sanctions were behind him. Add to that the fact that hundreds of chemical weapons, at a minimum, were secreted in various locations around Iraq--as also shown by this document--and it is reasonable to conclude that, even though the CIA and nearly all other observers over-estimated Iraq's WMD capabilities, the fear that Saddam might use such weapons, or slip them to a terrorist group, was well-founded.
|
>>Link<<
...and that was my real point.
I should probably change the subject of the thread since WMDs are /obvious I suppose :p
The source above also mentions that the unclassified document is also a small fraction of a much larger document that the CIA is keeping close to their chest.
Apparently Santorum is going to push to have the whole thing released probably to keep from looking like an ass. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by ogvh5150
Fir3start3r:
You mean to tell me that thousands died over some old expired WMDs that have been on the shelf for 20 or more years? |
You really believe that's the only reason? :conf: |
|
|
| ogvh5150 |
Fir3start3r:
You mean to tell me that thousands died over some old expired WMDs that have been on the shelf for 20 or more years?
GMAFB.
How about this; find the nearest recruitment center so you can all show us how you singlehandedly found those more recent WMD's that thousands of troops nor spy satellites can't find.
An important find like that would not have to wait years for it to be declassified. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| Fir3start3r, c'mon dude, you still believe there are WMDs there? WMDs (biological wepons) which were not sold to Sadaam by our beloved goverment and who's shelf life isn't long over? |
|
|
|
|
