WMD in Iraq

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]vroom wrote:
The bottom line is that there were WMDs and they had programs in place to produce more.

This undercuts much of the shit said by some of the Dems.

Saddam’s programs were not as advanced as we believed but they existed.

Saddam’s stockpile of WMDs were not nearly as big as we believed and were not in immediately useable condition.

Anyone that tries to claim there were no WMD’s in Iraq is a bigger liar than Bush.

Zap,

I’m ashamed of you for towing the party line on this and not paying attention to both the DoD and the White House.

To claim some old expired and unusable munitions represent an active WMD program or a capability to develop WMD’s is absolutely shameful and puts you right in line with Jerffy for being the biggest cheerleader on these boards.

Come on, you have more brains that that! Don’t you?

You are buying spin, hook, line and sinker… and I suspect you like to think of yourself as a thinker, not a party line kind of man.

You’d better reassess yourself.[/quote]

Did you read what I posted or are you just making up shit?

Where did Isay the WMD’s found were part of their active programs. Where did I say their programs were active?

Their programs were in place and they were waiting for the inspectors to go away and the sanctions to be removed so they could get the programs rolling again.

I think you better reasses your stance.

I have provided no spin, merely facts.

You anti-Bush types have been spinning wildly.

42

Actually this is the BIG story that went under the radar – the opposite of finding WMD would be arming the terrorists…

HAVE 200,000 AK47’s FALLEN INTO THE HANDS OF IRAQ TERRORISTS?
FEARS OVER SECRET U.S. ARMS SHIPMENT
10 May 2006
SOME 200,000 guns the US sent to Iraqi security forces may have been smuggled to terrorists, it was feared yesterday.

The 99-tonne cache of AK47s was to have been secretly flown out from a US base in Bosnia. But the four planeloads of arms have vanished.

Orders for the deal to go ahead were given by the US Department of Defense. But the work was contracted out via a complex web of private arms traders.

And the Moldovan airline used to transport the shipment was blasted by the UN in 2003 for smuggling arms to Liberia, human rights group Amnesty has discovered.

It follows a separate probe claiming that thousands of guns meant for Iraq’s police and army instead went to al-Qaeda.

US in secret gun deal
Small arms shipped from Bosnia to Iraq ‘go missing’ as Pentagon uses dealers
May 12, 2006
The Guardian

The Pentagon has secretly shipped tens of thousands of small arms from Bosnia to Iraq in the past two years, using a web of private companies, at least one of which is a noted arms smuggler blacklisted by Washington and the UN.

According to a report by Amnesty International, which investigated the sales, the US government arranged for the delivery of at least 200,000 Kalashnikov machine guns from Bosnia to Iraq in 2004-05. But though the weaponry was said to be for arming the fledgling Iraqi military, there is no evidence of the guns reaching their recipient.

43

It does not matter why we are there now.

Bush messed up and nothing with change the publics sentiment unfortunately for the GOP rah rahs.

The liberals on this site take this just a serious as the Bushites.

It is too bad because this discussion is like digging through Hoover dam with a piece of rebar.

44

So there was concrete documented evidence that Iraq was waiting for 12-15 years to dig these things up and start using them? There was documented concrete evidence that these particular things were going to be used as part of a larger plan to develop WMDs? We have the scientific and miliatry experts in the Department of Defense saying that these are not what they were looking for when we invaded Iraq, but two Republican congressmen say that this is vital and we are suppose to take their side? Sniff, sniff What’s that smell? Oh yeah, it’s the smell of desperation. It’s the smell of people grasping for straws.

45

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
Actually this is the BIG story that went under the radar – the opposite of finding WMD would be arming the terrorists…

HAVE 200,000 AK47’s FALLEN INTO THE HANDS OF IRAQ TERRORISTS?
FEARS OVER SECRET U.S. ARMS SHIPMENT
10 May 2006
SOME 200,000 guns the US sent to Iraqi security forces may have been smuggled to terrorists, it was feared yesterday.

The 99-tonne cache of AK47s was to have been secretly flown out from a US base in Bosnia. But the four planeloads of arms have vanished.

Orders for the deal to go ahead were given by the US Department of Defense. But the work was contracted out via a complex web of private arms traders.

And the Moldovan airline used to transport the shipment was blasted by the UN in 2003 for smuggling arms to Liberia, human rights group Amnesty has discovered.

It follows a separate probe claiming that thousands of guns meant for Iraq’s police and army instead went to al-Qaeda.

US in secret gun deal
Small arms shipped from Bosnia to Iraq ‘go missing’ as Pentagon uses dealers
May 12, 2006
The Guardian

The Pentagon has secretly shipped tens of thousands of small arms from Bosnia to Iraq in the past two years, using a web of private companies, at least one of which is a noted arms smuggler blacklisted by Washington and the UN.

According to a report by Amnesty International, which investigated the sales, the US government arranged for the delivery of at least 200,000 Kalashnikov machine guns from Bosnia to Iraq in 2004-05. But though the weaponry was said to be for arming the fledgling Iraqi military, there is no evidence of the guns reaching their recipient.

[/quote]

The UK Daily Mirror where one of those quotes came from is kind of like a cross between The Onion and the National Enquirer. Don’t use that as a source ffs .

46

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Hey little irish:

Welcome to another area in which you come up short.

Here is the declassified information that the two Congressmen were referencing:

www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf

Oh, please read the underlined portion stating that the munitions are still potent and dangerous.

Type in www.msnbc.com.

The Good Guys will laugh out loud.

If you can find little irish’s article, you will smile at the difference in the reporting.

little irish, who are the defense department officials?

I’m curious.

JeffR[/quote]

Why are you calling people ‘Little’ ?

Who are you ? Victor Friggin Richards ?

47

[quote]Meddyg Stigg wrote:

Why are you calling people ‘Little’ ?

Who are you ? Victor Friggin Richards ?[/quote]

LOL!!!

Jefferiffy hasn’t seen a weight room since the Carter administration. Don’t let him fool you.

48

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Meddyg Stigg wrote:

Why are you calling people ‘Little’ ?

Who are you ? Victor Friggin Richards ?

LOL!!!

Jefferiffy hasn’t seen a weight room since the Carter administration. Don’t let him fool you.[/quote]

Maybe when he finds some WMD’s he can load up an olympic bar with them and get busy.

49

[quote]Meddyg Stigg wrote:
Maybe when he finds some WMD’s he can load up an olympic bar with them and get busy.[/quote]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Best fucking quote ever!!! <(those extra exclamation marks are just for you, jeffy)

50

Zap,

Programs aren’t “in place” just because they want them if they can get them. He did not have them, he didn’t have active programs. The sanctions were never removed.

What he wanted to do is not the same as what he actually had.

You can’t use the desires of someone to suggest their capabilities. I’d like to be a multi-millioniare with a twelve inch dick, but I’ll probably never be that rich.

Life is harsh, I know.

51

[quote]Meddyg Stigg wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Meddyg Stigg wrote:

Why are you calling people ‘Little’ ?

Who are you ? Victor Friggin Richards ?

LOL!!!

Jefferiffy hasn’t seen a weight room since the Carter administration. Don’t let him fool you.

Maybe when he finds some WMD’s he can load up an olympic bar with them and get busy.[/quote]

You forget that cheerleaders don’t lift weights.

52

I love my democrats!!!

The Good Guys are laughing their ass off at your spin.

Let’s follow along:

A. There were no WMD. Bush lied, everyone died.

B. There were no WMD made after 1991. saddam lied about destroying all his stockpiles, BUT, he told the truth about everything else.

C. Ok, he had mustard gas. But, he didn’t have sarin.

D. Ok, he had sarin, but he wasn’t going to use them.

E. Ok, so he used WMD in the past, but, he wouldn’t use them.

F. Ok, he used them on his own people, but he wouldn’t fire them on another country.

G. Ok, he used them on Iran, but he wouldn’t attack a REAL powerful country.

H. Ok, he attacked Israel, tried to assassinate the U.S. President, harbored zarqawi in Iraq, armed al qaeda in the Philipines, ran Anti-Saudi propaganda at the behest of osama bin laden (see the saddam tapes, little irish), fired on the U.S. planes, interrupted oil supplies to push their agenda, paid $26,000 to the families of palestinian terrorists–But, he was “smart and capable.”

I. Ok, he was an implacable enemy of the United States and his police force rejoiced at 911 (see mural lauding it in police headquarters), but…

J. Ok, Bush was right (liberal head melts).

OH, some related material.

  1. www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200606/NAT20060621e.html

  2. intelligence.house.gov/Media/PDFS/DNILetter.pdf

  3. intelligence.house.gov/Media/PDFS/Release062106num2.pdf

  4. www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N22434436.htm

JeffR

53

[quote]JeffR wrote:

J. Ok, Bush was right (liberal head melts).[/quote]

LOL! Funny stuff, good post.

It does seem as though the left works very hard to qaulify any significant development and/or find in Iraq as a non issue. The Bush administration has never said that the war on terror would be a cakewalk down the primrose lane to a large brightly painted storage facillity with a neon sign reading “WMD’s located here”.

Bush has consistantly stated that the war on terror would be a long, drawn out, very difficult undertaking.

54

[quote]JeffR wrote:
I love my democrats!!!

The Good Guys are laughing their ass off at your spin.

Let’s follow along:

A. There were no WMD. Bush lied, everyone died.

B. There were no WMD made after 1991. saddam lied about destroying all his stockpiles, BUT, he told the truth about everything else.

C. Ok, he had mustard gas. But, he didn’t have sarin.

D. Ok, he had sarin, but he wasn’t going to use them.

E. Ok, so he used WMD in the past, but, he wouldn’t use them.

F. Ok, he used them on his own people, but he wouldn’t fire them on another country.

G. Ok, he used them on Iran, but he wouldn’t attack a REAL powerful country.

H. Ok, he attacked Israel, tried to assassinate the U.S. President, harbored zarqawi in Iraq, armed al qaeda in the Philipines, ran Anti-Saudi propaganda at the behest of osama bin laden (see the saddam tapes, little irish), fired on the U.S. planes, interrupted oil supplies to push their agenda, paid $26,000 to the families of palestinian terrorists–But, he was “smart and capable.”

I. Ok, he was an implacable enemy of the United States and his police force rejoiced at 911 (see mural lauding it in police headquarters), but…

J. Ok, Bush was right (liberal head melts).

OH, some related material.

  1. www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200606/NAT20060621e.html

  2. intelligence.house.gov/Media/PDFS/DNILetter.pdf

  3. intelligence.house.gov/Media/PDFS/Release062106num2.pdf

  4. www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N22434436.htm

JeffR[/quote]

The Soviet Union had a list a mile longer than that of atrocities, as does Communist China, from Mao to today.

We never fought the USSR- hey, containment works! China is still bad, but information and the internet is seeping in, leading me to believe that soon, our brothers in China will break their chains and take their country back. Containment works against them too.

There’s a hundred countries with brutal dictators who hate America, and some have WMD (North Korea, for example). Iraq was not, and has never been, anywhere near a threat to America.

Saudi Arabia is as brutal as Iraq, or even Afghanistan. But we give them arms and support. I guess their people’s freedom is worth less?

55

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

Bush has consistantly stated that the war on terror would be a long, drawn out, very difficult undertaking.
[/quote]

The Iraq war has nothing to do with the war on terror, and has no effect on whether terrorists hit us or not.

56

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
bigflamer wrote:

Bush has consistantly stated that the war on terror would be a long, drawn out, very difficult undertaking.

The Iraq war has nothing to do with the war on terror, and has no effect on whether terrorists hit us or not. [/quote]

You are showing a fundamental misunderstanding.

You could make a case that invading Iraq was not necessary for the war on terror but right now Iraq is in the middle of the war on terror.

57

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
bigflamer wrote:

Bush has consistantly stated that the war on terror would be a long, drawn out, very difficult undertaking.

The Iraq war has nothing to do with the war on terror, and has no effect on whether terrorists hit us or not. [/quote]

The war, or rather the invasion no, but Saddam Hussein yes.

He has direct links with terrorism and had done for many years. For example

‘Quote from Wikipedia’

At 11:30 on 30 April 1980 a six-man terrorist team calling itself the “Democratic Revolutionary Movement for the Liberation of Arabistan” (DRMLA), sponsored by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, captured the building in Prince’s Gate, Knightsbridge, central London.

Initially it emerged they wanted autonomy for an oil-rich region in southern Iran known as Khuzestan; later they demanded the release of 91 of their comrades held in Ayatollah Khomeini’s jails. Only after the incident was over did it emerge that Iraq had trained and armed the gunmen to embarrass Iran, and it would become a prelude to the Iran-Iraq war.

(end quote)

So he (and his ‘admin’ people) had direct links with terrorists of all shapes and forms. But was a full scale inavsion necessary to end this sort of activity, no it wasn’t.

58

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Hey Zap,

Amazing how far these liberals (harris/pox) will go.

They’ll hit you with “No WMD in Iraq.”

Once that has been refuted, you get “Oh, they weren’t that dangerous. We knew all about THOSE.”

You watch, “bin laden really wasn’t that important after all.”

Any bets?

JeffR[/quote]

Actually, shithead, your hero Dubya was the one who claimed he wasn’t all that interested in getting Bin Laden.

Ac

59

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
bigflamer wrote:

Bush has consistantly stated that the war on terror would be a long, drawn out, very difficult undertaking.

The Iraq war has nothing to do with the war on terror, and has no effect on whether terrorists hit us or not.

You are showing a fundamental misunderstanding.

You could make a case that invading Iraq was not necessary for the war on terror but right now Iraq is in the middle of the war on terror.[/quote]

I understand that.

However, they are in a civil war right now. It will worsen whether or not we are there, and I think that at this point, we don’t have much control over the situation (I don’t think it’s possible to have control over a foreign nation that is in as bad shape as Iraq is).

I’m going to post up the recent TIME article that is an excerpt from a new book coming out. The terrorists had every plan to bomb the NYC subways in 2003, and nothing stood in their way. For some reason, they called it off.

Again, living right next to the city, it scares the shit out of me. They found out about this by using the intelligence community in the right way…it had nothing to do with the war.

I wonder what would happen now if we got hit again, after all this bloodshed in the “War on Terror”. Would this prove that Iraq and Islamic terrorism are not intertwined in the way it seems?

60


So, according to all the cheerleaders, we found some WMD’s.

They were from 15 or 20 years ago, but still…

Yet, the Bush administration (always ones to toot their own horn) have mentioned nothing about this.

I wonder why?