So they found WMD

Bazzlad · 07-10-2003, 09:44 AM

So where's the Media coverage?
They found conclusive proof of chemical weapons, attempts to extend missile range(s) attemps to enrich uranium and a factory set up to produce *banned* scum missile fuel.

The press were quick enough to jump on Tony Blair's back when they couldn't find anything, yet not so quick to point out he was actually right!
I find this disturbing, and also when the war was happening, how quick the BBC was to point out our losses and deaths but how slow to point out how well we actually did.....
EG: The British body count is now (what was it, 24 or something like that)
Never a mention of the Iraqi Body count.

It really got to me....and I'm not even a Tony Blair fan.
What are your views?

[GSV]Trig · 07-10-2003, 10:03 AM

If they have found WOMD then they should by theory shoving it in the presses face to prove they were right...

Bazzlad · 07-10-2003, 10:14 AM

There was a *small* article in the sun about it last friday. Great.
Shout it from the rooftops, our men didn't die in vain.

Blub2k · 07-10-2003, 10:53 AM

I wouldn't get too excited about a vial of Botulism that has been in a guys fridge for ten years. UK soldiers died in an illegal war!

Bazzlad · 07-10-2003, 11:09 AM

Did you not read the entire article?
Obviously not.
The scientist who they found the vial with had been threatened by Iraqi troops to hide it and try to leave the country as countless others did.
And what about the nuke plan, and long range missiles etc?
The war wasn't illegal, what they found PROVED conclusivly that Saddam had broke the convention, meaning the war was, infact legal.
Also, what about the cells where chemical weapons had been tested on live victims? Is breaching human rights not a reason?

Ice Kay · 07-10-2003, 11:13 AM

Originally posted by Bazzlad
There was a *small* article in the sun about it last friday. Great.
Shout it from the rooftops, our men didn't die in vain.

The Sun paper ???

The most reliable, truthful and unbiased paper ??

nuff said.

spikegifted · 07-10-2003, 11:18 AM

Back in 1988, I read on the Sunday Sport that they found a WWII bomber on the Moon...

Ice Kay · 07-10-2003, 11:20 AM

The weapons inspection team themselves have found no conclusive evidence to show SH had any WOMD, let alone use it within 45 minutes.

Bazzlad · 07-10-2003, 11:34 AM

*Cough* hahaha *Cough*
So you'll believe it when they say there wasn't any, but not when they discover there was.
I said SUN not Sunday Sport.

A 13 Page Document, compiled from reports from 1200 arms experts who have been scouring iraq for two months. Including ISG Chief Dr David Kay who states:
"We have discovered dozens of WMD related programme activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the UN"

Thus UN resolution 1441 was breached.

Sorry my mistake Ice Kay, the UN team who were totally 100% unhindered didn't find anything.....
Note the sarcasm. They weren't allowed to interview scientists without Iraqi Guards present, were constantly delayed when trying to search facilities (Stalling for hiding time I presume).
~
Just incase you're wondering Dr David Kay is a former UN Weapons inspector himself, he dismantled Saddams fist nuclear programme after the first Gulf War.
He also says they couldn't find anything immediatly after the fall of Saddam due to being obstructed by Uraqi obstruction, secracy and sabotage, noting that the looting destroyed a lot of evidence of the programme, this particular looting was deliberate.

Shad · 07-10-2003, 11:39 AM

People actually read the Sunday Sport?? I thought it was just a picture book

Blub2k · 07-10-2003, 12:00 PM

The Sun is not exactly a reliable source of information, they are speculating way above what the IGS themselves are saying. The ISG have said so far that they have no evidence of WMD despite really really really really wanting to have evidence. The ISG have been working in Iraq so far without the hindrance of guards looking over their soldiers and at this stage most of the Iraqi scientists are in USA with a green card and they still cant find anything. The UN weapons inspectors said they believed there was a good chance that there was systematic concealment of WMD programs but they needed the time to find them and prove it. This task has now been taken on by the ISG and they still cant prove it. Very shaky grounds and NO proof that 1441 was breached. Hans Blix has since stated that he believes that most weapons were destroyed post Gulf War 1.

looting destroyed a lot of evidence of the programme, this particular looting was deliberate

This I agree with in fact it looks like it was encouraged everywhere by the USA except the oil ministry. Now what more convenient way is there to destroy evidence than to allow the conquered natives to do it, of course it was the looting Iraqis , aaaah it is all clear now.........err NOT.

Bazzlad · 07-10-2003, 12:22 PM

I can't see ANY clear evidence from your argument that says otherwise.
As for the ISG saying they haven't found anything, do you have any proof of that? Like a quote because I've heard nothing of the sort.
Oh and the Vial of Botulism by itself is proof of 1441 being broken/

DaBeeeenster · 07-10-2003, 01:30 PM

Originally posted by Bazzlad
I can't see ANY clear evidence from your argument that says otherwise.
As for the ISG saying they haven't found anything, do you have any proof of that? Like a quote because I've heard nothing of the sort.
Oh and the Vial of Botulism by itself is proof of 1441 being broken/

The fact that 1441 was broken did not infer war. It inferred "serious consequences". Do you actually know what was in the vial? Here's a good explanation:

Clostridium botulinum, the bacteria which produces botulinum toxin, is a normal soil bacterium. You've probably ingested large quantities of it yourself, if you've ever eaten vegetables straight out of a garden without washing them thoroughly, or if you've ever eaten unfiltered honey. Live C. botulinum is used in undergraduate microbiology labs as a teaching tool...the live bacteria are not dangerous, are ubiquitous in nature, and are ubiquitous in microbiology labs around the globe--even those not hell-bent on the destruction of American liberty & whatnot.

If Kay said that large quantities of purified botulinum toxin had been found, that would be significant. It's difficult to purify the toxin from the bacteria (which produce the toxin in exceedinly small amounts), and there's no good reason to have lots of it. (Although it would not mean much if only small amounts of purified botulinum toxin were found anywhere--small amounts of the toxin are injected by doctors into patients for the treatment of chronic pain and wrinkles--that's what BoTox is.)

http://billmon.org/archives/000736.html

If that's a good enough reason to go to war then I'll be staying in Australia to watch world war 3.

Bazzlad · 07-10-2003, 01:37 PM

What do you think Serious Consequences implied?
A slap on the wrist?
Come on, What can they do, Threaten? Put down rules? ETC, it has all been done beforem and didn't work.

You have a fair point on the boltulism, but the scientist who was found with it has told of other agents and product lines which could be switched to produce anthrax in under a week.
Also what about the missiles, the uranium enrichment not to mention the scuds?

DaBeeeenster · 07-10-2003, 01:52 PM

Originally posted by Bazzlad
What do you think Serious Consequences implied?
A slap on the wrist?
Come on, What can they do, Threaten? Put down rules? ETC, it has all been done beforem and didn't work.

You have a fair point on the boltulism, but the scientist who was found with it has told of other agents and product lines which could be switched to produce anthrax in under a week.
Also what about the missiles, the uranium enrichment not to mention the scuds?

The UN inspectors were in Iraq and were actually dismantling Al Samoud missiles days before the first strikes. What do you call that, other than progress?

Oh, right, so we are now invading countries because if we dont, and then we wait a week, they might have some anthrax. Are you serious? You have to be joking, right?

Regarding the uranium enrichment and the overranged missiles. What do you think the UN teams were doing in Iraq, having a chess tournaement? They were dismantling missiles and ensuring that weapons programs were not in existance. It appears that they were doing a good job, doesn't it?

Bazzlad · 07-10-2003, 01:58 PM

Then why was Hans Blix on TV saying he wasn't being given full assistance by the Iraqis? And as they fired the scud missiles as war broke out *Not at our forces-Can't remember who at, can anyone?* it looks like they did a great job of deconstructing them, bear in mind they'd been in place since the first gulf war, how many years could it take to destroy missiles? War broke out because Saddam was a threat, and a big one at that, the only thing I don't understand is why he was allowed back in power after the first gulf war? Anyone care to enlighten me?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)