what the dems have said about wmd's and iraq

[Ron 10]

Quote

>Hell SH said he had them ata times depending on who he was talking to.

Us, on occasion. We sold them to him; he used them against the Iranians as we had hoped.

Im never said he didn't have them, and aI never said we didnt SELL them to him...I say he had them and you say we sold them to him...OK Bill thats getting old...I KNOW we sold them to him, I also KNOW he had them...YOU keep saying he didn't have them....

Quote

>SH had made a supper cannon that was able to shoot 650 miles.

A myth created by a defector (Khidhir Hamza) who wanted to pay for his freedom with the information.

Myth? It says it was built

Quote

CIA, Project Babylon: The Iraqi Supergun, November 1991. Secret.

Source: CIA Electronic Reading Room, released by Mandatory Declassification Review

From 1988 to 1990, Iraq was involved in an unusual weapons program, codenamed Project Babylon. The project's objective was the development and production of several large caliber guns, including a 1,000-millimeter-diameter supergun. In addition, the project included development of both conventional and rocket projectiles for the gun. The gun was intended to deliver the explosive devices to military and economic targets up to 620 miles away. The project was being managed for Iraq by a foreign company, Space Research Corporation, headed by Gerald Bull.

By early 1990, a 350-mm-diameter version of the gun had been successfully built and tested. In addition, many of the components for the 1,000-mm. gun and two other 350-mm guns had been delivered to Iraq. In March 1990, Bull was murdered. The following month, the United Kingdom customs service seized the final eight sections that were to be used in the 1,000-mm. gun barrel. Other nations followed by seizing other components of the supergun. The seizures prevented Iraq from completing the project. In July 1991, after initial denials, Iraq acknowledged the project. In October 1991, Project Babylon components were destroyed under U.N. supervision.

This document discusses the rationale, origins, technical details, and history of Project Babylon

Quote

>Curveball a Iraqi defector said he know of moble Chem labs.

Again, a defector who sold bad info for asylum.

Ok but I am PROVING they had bad intel...See..He gave bad intel. My point is proven here.

Quote

>Hans Blix himself said that the Iraqi's would not permit U2
>overflights...

Before the invasion, Iraq WAS permitting overflights.

Quote

Hans Blix, An Update on Inspection, January 27, 2003.

Source: http://www.un.org

In Resolution 1441, adopted in November 2002, the U.N. Security Council called for progress reports from UNMOVIC and the IAEA two months after renewing inspections in Iraq. As head of UNMOVIC, Blix is responsible for overseeing inspections whose objective is to verify Iraqi chemical and biological warfare disarmament. Part of Blix's report reviews the sequence and content of U.N. resolutions dealing with the disarmament of Iraq.


The key part of his paper, however, deals with the extent of Iraqi cooperation - with regard to both substance and process. With regard to process, while he states that "Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field," he does note a number of problems, including Iraq's refusal to guarantee the safety of proposed U.N. U-2 overflights as well as it insistence on sending helicopters into the no-fly zone to transport the Iraqis who serve as the inspectors minders. In addition, Blix notes "some recent disturbing incidents and harassment."


With regard to cooperation on substance, Blix's report is more negative, noting that Iraq has failed to engage in the "active" cooperation called for in Resolution 1441. He questions Iraqi claims concerning the quality, quantity, and disposition of VX nerve gas produced by Iraq as well as claims that Iraq destroyed 8, 500 liters of anthrax. In addition, he reports that Iraq has tested two missiles in excess of the permitted range of 150 kilometers.


The final portion of the report specifies how the inspection process can be made more fruitful - including the turning over of more relevant documents, lists of key personnel, and the facilitation of credible interviews

So they were NOT being "active" in helping out

Quote

I agree. Lots of people right here on this board thought that he did have them. However, if I go up to the Pentagon and say "The Russians are coming! The Russians are coming!" and we launch ICBM's on my warning, there is something very seriously wrong with the system. If the current administration would use my warning to justify a war against Russia that they really wanted, I would hope you would see that as a pretty transparent ruse.

Big difference in you and a defector from Russia.

Plus we had intel from SEVERAL sources...not just one guy.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[billvon 3,131]

>I also KNOW he had them...YOU keep saying he didn't have them....

No, I didn't. Of course he had them; we sold them to him. The real question is - did he have an WMD program in place when we invaded, like we claimed he did? (And no, I'm not talking about degraded debris from an earlier war - I'm talking about the WMD program as we described it, one that was a grave threat to the US.)

>Myth? It says it was built . . .

Oh, I agree it was. The myth that was Khidhir Hamza told us it was a real threat, that it was being rebuilt.

>Plus we had intel from SEVERAL sources...not just one guy.

So it would take, say, three Al Qaeda operatives who "cooperate" with our government to get us to attack Russia, or whoever Al Qaeda doesn't like? Like I said, if that's the case there is something very seriously wrong with our system, and it needs to be fixed.

[freeflydrew 0]

Why does is seem so clear as day that there wasn't a Weapons program in effect, there wasn't a grave threat, tons of resources have been wasted, and the administration told untruths to the American people. If I didn't know that this was all about oil and about the US relocating it's middle eastern military bases to Iraq, I would be really puzzled as to what exactly was going on here. It seems clear as day!

[Ron 10]

Quote

No, I didn't. Of course he had them; we sold them to him. The real question is - did he have an WMD program in place when we invaded, like we claimed he did? (And no, I'm not talking about degraded debris from an earlier war - I'm talking about the WMD program as we described it, one that was a grave threat to the US.)

Sources from Saudi Arabia, Defectors from Iraq, England and even German reports showed a threat. Hans Blix's reports showed that he was only KINDA co-operationg with the inspections. He was still working on long range missles WHILE HANS WAS THERE. SH had ignored the UN resolution for 10 years.

We had intel from several sources. Some was shakey and some had agendas...But thats how ALL HUMINT is.

Quote

So it would take, say, three Al Qaeda operatives who "cooperate" with our government to get us to attack Russia, or whoever Al Qaeda doesn't like? Like I said, if that's the case there is something very seriously wrong with our system, and it needs to be fixed.

Again several sources from several different places...Not 5 guys from Brooklyn.

Enough sources that CONGRESS voted to allow force, the UN voted to allow force. Your issue is with how much proof is needed...The UN and CONGRESS though there was a threat....The UN and Congress could not agree with how much proof was needed...

Again. I don't need a better reason to attack somone than them telling everyone they are wanting to kill me, after I have seen them kill others.

Why wait?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[billvon 3,131]

>Again. I don't need a better reason to attack somone than them telling
>everyone they are wanting to kill me, after I have seen them kill others.

You said early on that we got bad intelligence and that's why we attacked Iraq. Surely you agree that bad intelligence is a very bad thing; bad intelligence has cost people battles (and even wars) before. Bad intelligence is a massive threat to the security of the US, because it can lead us to make bad decisions and (more importantly) blind us to real threats. So:

1. If we had good intelligence (i.e. we knew his WMD programs were a joke) do you think Bush should still have attacked?

2. If we can agree that bad intelligence is a bad thing, how do we fix the problem?

[Casurf1978 0]

SH did almost have the super cannon you're refferring to. I think it was called "Project Babylon", Dr.Gerald Bull was working on it and built a Baby Babylon. SH did want to have a super gun and was working with Dr.Bull from mid 1981 till 1990. The scary part was that the US and Britain turned a blind eye to SH and Dr. Bull. Britain even helped supply the parts to the main super gun which could orbit a 2,000kg projectile. The only ones who I think did something about were the Israelis, cuz Bull was assinated in 1990. My moneys on them. They were also the only ones who knocked out the Nuclear reactor SH was working on and the only nation that actually planned to assinate SH post Gulf War 1.

[freeflydrew 0]

Quote

Enough sources that CONGRESS voted to allow force, the UN voted to allow force. Your issue is with how much proof is needed...The UN and CONGRESS though there was a threat....The UN and Congress could not agree with how much proof was needed...

Again. I don't need a better reason to attack somone than them telling everyone they are wanting to kill me, after I have seen them kill others.

I was unaware that Saddam had said he was going to attack the US...Congress approved the war in the wake of 9/11... They believed, god knows why, that Iraq did in fact pose an immediate threat, and that it was some how directly linked to Al-Queda and the "war on terror"... The UN approved it because the US and the security council passed the resolution saying that Saddam had to account for all the weapons, which he didn't. Powell went in front of them and talked some serious shit (even he has since admitted the intel was all false), as did Bush and the there you go. No one vetoed the use of force. But was it a UN backed international armed force, or was it the US and all the countries they promised part of the prize to? And is Iraq no longer a breeding ground for terrorism? Are they no longer harboring terrorists? Are we really safer as a result of this conflict? What impact has the last year and months had on our nations safety? A year and 71 days have passed and still no sign of any Weapons of Mass Destructions.

It's super easy to point fingers and call names, generalize, and categorize, but the fact of the matter is that there is a growing number of people on this planet who are growing more and more skeptical about the decisions this administration has made... and i think it's safe to assume that most of us don't feel any safer as a result of this conflict.

[Ron 10]

Quote

1. If we had good intelligence (i.e. we knew his WMD programs were a joke) do you think Bush should still have attacked?

No. I still think that the major reason we attacked was due to our fears that he had, or could have at the flip of a switch WMD's. And the fears that while HE may not use them that he would sell/give them to terroists to use. Could you imagine the death toll from a Biological agent released in NYC or LA? We KNOW he supported terroists, and we KNOW he hated us.

Quote

2. If we can agree that bad intelligence is a bad thing, how do we fix the problem?

I think that this is a reaction to the 9/11 attacks. Before 9/11 we had some intel that AL Quida was planning an attack. But nothing soild, and we were living in a dream world thinking that we were not subject to a terroist attack...At least nothing on such a grand scale....Lets face it the first WTC bombings were nothing...OK city was worse. So we were living with rose colored glasses on. 9/11 and the fact that they pulled off a VERY well planned and VERY well coordinated attack...Frankly shocked the shit out of us....I don't think a single person thought they could actually pull off an attack like that....

I think that lead to an over compensation...there is a name for this, but it escapes me right now....So now we took all intel WAY to seriously. Its a natural reaction.

At the time we thought it better to be over cautious so we didn't get slammed like we did on 9/11.

The theat of an NBC attack (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical...not the TV network) is a very real danger. The problem with an attack like that is not the delivery...The delivery is simple. It is the product. And who hates us that had/could have that kind of product? Answer: Iraq. We know he had them, and he has no morals against using them....As he showed by using them on his own people. Plus several times he has wished the US harm. He is a prime choice for a supplier for an NBC agent.

This shock is wearing off....Now we are not in a panic and it is easier to see the errors and the flaws in our over compensation.

Now the danger is not to get to lax...We already have people who almost deny that 9/11 happend. The fact that we have removed those images from TV has helped the nation heal....Maybe to much. It will be easy for the nation to become lax. We will tire of the constant changes to our colored warning system....We will change from Yellow to Orange so many times that it will stop being a big deal and chicken littles warnings will no longer be heeded.

Then the next attack will come....The public will blame the system we have for not catching the attack...And the people will lose faith in the repoting system and the government that controls it...

However we don't know how many attacks if any HAVE been avoided due to the current systems in place....And we may never know since the Government will not tell us. Any leaks about what attacks were stopped just let the terrorists learn what not to do next time...Al Queda has been very good to learn from past mistakes.

What do we do? We don't let our guard drop down...We are in a new world, and it is not pretty.

Oue intel community is in a hard spot...Do they chase every threat, or only the "quality" leads? Sometimes the smallest threat...the one you are ignoring, Is the main attack. With an NBC that could be very bad.

We have to bring our intel up....That is a long subject on its own....But some issues we are already seeing is...When does interagation become tourture.

These questions WILL have to be answered...And what do we consider to be an acceptable risk level?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 10]

Quote

I was unaware that Saddam had said he was going to attack the US

Saddam has made hundreds of threats to the Us over the past 10 years...Until 9/11 we considered him no threat since we were sure that the homeland was safe.

Quote

They believed, god knows why, that Iraq did in fact pose an immediate threat, and that it was some how directly linked to Al-Queda and the "war on terror"...

Becasue he supported terroists,a nd had at one time a stock pile of WMD's...And he would gladly give them to anyone that promised to use them on us...And now we knoew after 9/11 that they could actually do it.

Quote

It's super easy to point fingers and call names, generalize, and categorize, but the fact of the matter is that there is a growing number of people on this planet who are growing more and more skeptical about the decisions this administration has made... and i think it's safe to assume that most of us don't feel any safer as a result of this

Its easy to live life backwards...Lets face it most Americans were behind the war...Congress was behind the war...It is easy to see how people are getting sick of it...But at one time it was a popular idea....

I wish we had better intel before we started..But we had some, and we were afraid. We were still reeling from seeing the WTC's fall.

Now a year later it is easy to say we jumped the gun...But Almost EVERYONE was behind it a year ago.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[kallend 2,174]

Quote

Now a year later it is easy to say we jumped the gun...But Almost EVERYONE was behind it a year ago.

I wasn't. I wrote right here that the evidence presented was so unconvincing it wouldn't convict a shoplifter in a US court.


PS. I liked your previous sig better

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Are you willing to admit you have been lying to us if it turns out to be true that Iraq did try to buy uranium from Niger?

Does that "road to honesty" run in front of the Kallend household?

Sure, when you prove that Bush had this information at the time he prepared his speech, after the CIA had told the White House that the story was untrue, and that I knew all about it and didn't have "bad intel". That is the criterion that you Bush acolytes use to assure us that he's not lying when he says something untrue.

If you want to change your standard so it now agrees with mine, I have no problem with it. Congratulations!! I can assume then that you will apply this standard to all your accusations? Just to be intellectually consistant, right?

[kallend 2,174]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Are you willing to admit you have been lying to us if it turns out to be true that Iraq did try to buy uranium from Niger?

Does that "road to honesty" run in front of the Kallend household?

Sure, when you prove that Bush had this information at the time he prepared his speech, after the CIA had told the White House that the story was untrue, and that I knew all about it and didn't have "bad intel". That is the criterion that you Bush acolytes use to assure us that he's not lying when he says something untrue.

If you want to change your standard so it now agrees with mine, I have no problem with it. Congratulations!! I can assume then that you will apply this standard to all your accusations? Just to be intellectually consistant, right?

First we have to see whether your claim turns out to be accurate. After all, it is at variance with what the CIA is reported to have said. (I wasn't actually there so it's all hearsay, just like your claim).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,131]

>Could you imagine the death toll from a Biological agent released in NYC or LA?

We don't have to imagine; there was an anthrax attack against Washington, DC. As with many terrorist attacks, the panic it would cause would far outweigh any actual risk.

>I think that lead to an over compensation...there is a name for this,
> but it escapes me right now....So now we took all intel WAY to
> seriously. Its a natural reaction.

I think that's a part of it, but I think a bigger part was that there was finally a reason to act on a plan that had been in the planning stages for years - regime change in Iraq to establish a central US presence in the Middle East. Combine that with a desire to be seen doing something, and you have a war that would have been waged no matter what. I think a bit of panic set in at the end; there was a chance Blix would be able to complete inspections and find there was nothing there, thus eliminating the best reason they could come up with to achieve a long-desired goal.

> And who hates us that had/could have that kind of product? Answer:
> Iraq.

And North Korea, and Jordan, and Sudan, and China. But more problematic by far are extranational terrorist organizations; we cannot "strike back" at them easily and they know it. That's where we should be concentrating. I hope we can start freeing up troops soon to return to the borders of Afghanistan and Pakistan; that's where we will find the real threats to our security (if they are still there by the time we get around to it, that is.)

>However we don't know how many attacks if any HAVE been avoided
> due to the current systems in place....And we may never know since
> the Government will not tell us.

Yep. And what's important to remember is that we don't know how many attacks were prevented both before and after 9/11. We should fix what's broken, but also have the sense to know what's _not_ broken.

>What do we do? We don't let our guard drop down...We are in a new
>world, and it is not pretty.

I think that's the key. Eternal vigilance and all that. I hope that we don't forget who pulled off 9/11, and that it can happen again.

>We have to bring our intel up....That is a long subject on its
> own....But some issues we are already seeing is...When does
> interagation become tourture.

That's an easy one. Imagine a military friend of yours is being held by the North Koreans. If you would consider, say, her being held underwater until she passed out as torture, apply the same standard to prisoners we take.

[Ron 10]

Quote

We don't have to imagine; there was an anthrax attack against Washington, DC.

The anthrax attack was nothing. Now imagine an air burst bomb with Sarin gas exploding right over a packed football stadium.
If you had the Sarin, the delivery would be EASY.

Quote

As with many terrorist attacks, the panic it would cause would far outweigh any actual risk.

I don't totally agree with that. Yes the goal of terror is to disrupt lives...But the effects of 9/11 are still being felt.

Quote

I think that's a part of it, but I think a bigger part was that there was finally a reason to act on a plan that had been in the planning stages for years - regime change in Iraq to establish a central US presence in the Middle East.

Again there is no proof of that being a plan. As for a presence in the middle east we have some in Israel and Saudi Arabi already. An occuping force is rarely met with open arms.

Also I think that if the Administartion didn't have what they thought was good intel then it would be foolish to push an agenda that they could not back....Think about it If we find out that Bush KNEW there were no WMD's but ordered the war anyway, Even I would want his head on a platter. I would want him in impeached and in JAIL for war crimes.

And since we already have troops in the middle east besides Iraq...I would not risk it with out a good hunch that there was a real threat.

Quote

> And who hates us that had/could have that kind of product? Answer:
> Iraq.

And North Korea, and Jordan, and Sudan, and China.

All of them will not risk our vengence. NK can't even feed its people much less win a conventonal war with our weapons we have.

China does not hate us as much as it is made out...Lets see, ok, I have found 2 products in my office that were made in China in 2 minutes.

Jordan and Sudan....Same, they don't like us, but their leaders are not openly saying they want us dead, and last I checked they have not plotted to kill our President.

Quote

But more problematic by far are extranational terrorist organizations; we cannot "strike back" at them easily and they know it.

And the fear I had was that WMD's from a country that had them would give them to a terroist group...The prime choice for that kind of action was Iraq.

Quote

Yep. And what's important to remember is that we don't know how many attacks were prevented both before and after 9/11. We should fix what's broken, but also have the sense to know what's _not_ broken.

I still think that we thought Iraq had WMD's and I also think that he would have happily given them to someone that promised to use them on us. So I think he was a threat. Now if it was found that he didn't have any...And we KNEW it...I will stand right next to you and ask to impeach the President.

Our war on terror is tricky. One thing you HAVE to do is destroy the support base for these criminals.
You can't jsut wait for them to form and attack them.
Make it so that if you are harboring them, we will burn your house down with them inside. If you are giving them aid or weapons we will destroy them and you in the process. I think Iraq was a step to that end.

Quote

>We have to bring our intel up....That is a long subject on its
> own....But some issues we are already seeing is...When does
> interagation become tourture.

That's an easy one. Imagine a military friend of yours is being held by the North Koreans. If you would consider, say, her being held underwater until she passed out as torture, apply the same standard to prisoners we take

Not so easy to answer...You definition and mine are not going to match.

Like I said, the way to attack a terror cell is to cut off its support base..Make it so that no one is willing to give them money, aid, weapons, or shelter. Make them stand in the open and then cut them down.

Ya know why the old USSR didn't have planes get hijacked? They killed everyone involved, they didnt allow them to get away with it. And so they never did get planes hijacked anymore...Yes, they lost some people in the raids before the terroists learned it would not work...but I doubt the lost the 3,000 we did on 9/11 before the lesson sunk in.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334