So they found WMD

[Drunken Poncho]

*whistles* rule britannia britannia rules the waves

[G4Z]

http://www.ccmep.org/2003_articles/I...pation_gas.htm

Interesting reading.

[Blub2k]

Where are the WMD's by the way? Not heard a lot more about this since the apparent discovery of WMD's? Maybe it was just a tube of toothpaste but cos it was in arabic it looked like Anthrax????

[spikegifted]

Originally posted by Blub2k
Where are the WMD's by the way? Not heard a lot more about this since the apparent discovery of WMD's? Maybe it was just a tube of toothpaste but cos it was in arabic it looked like Anthrax????

LOL!!

The more probable truth is (and I hate not to disappoint those war-mongers among us) - there is NONE!! Wake up! Smell the coffee!! There is no WMD in Iraq... Of course, I stand to be corrected, but if the intelligence mights of the US can't find any after 6 months, I very much doubt they'd ever find any.

[G4Z]

hehe, 200 odd days now and still no WMD.

I for one do not think there ever was any, I think the whole thing was a ploy to keep the iranians off saddams back, I reckon bush would have been aware of this as would blair (my dad actually told me this theory before we went to war, so I dunno how our government could have overlooked it, uunless they are s**t that is...) I think they knew there no WMD, and saddam could not have destroyed them if there werent any, he was in a lose lose situation really. IMO, if we were gonna go take out saddam (and a nasty guy he is) our governments should have been up front with us. but they werent, My opinion on this... and it is pure speculation is that they would never have done that because that would open the floodgates wouldnt it?

Imagine, "you attacked saddam, why not zimbabwe/korea/Iran/Syria ect.."

not to mention it would show them as the hypocrites they are for moving against saddam but not doing anything about Israel (in contravention of at least 15 UN resolutions at last count)

[Saracen]

Originally posted by G4Z
I for one do not think there ever was any,

So what was it that Saddam had dropped on Halabja? Candyfloss?

And what about the tons of the stuff the UN Weapons Inspectors discovered immediately after Gulf War 1? Was all that a faked-up job by the UN? Not all of it was successfully destroyed or accouted for. Where is it now?

Originally posted by G4Z
.... I think the whole thing was a ploy to keep the iranians off saddams back, I reckon bush would have been aware of this as would blair (my dad actually told me this theory before we went to war, so I dunno how our government could have overlooked it, uunless they are s**t that is...) I think they knew there no WMD, and saddam could not have destroyed them if there werent any, he was in a lose lose situation really.

It's early days yet. Remeber the size of Iraq? At the last report from the current inspection team, they'd only investigated a small percentage of the sites they believe to have possibly been weapons sites, and some of these sites are 50 square miles in size. It takes TIME to do a thorough job.

Maybe Saddam still had WMD, maybe not. Personally, I think all we can do is sit back and wait for the evidence, or lack or it, when the job is done.

Originally posted by G4Z
not to mention it would show them as the hypocrites they are for moving against saddam but not doing anything about Israel (in contravention of at least 15 UN resolutions at last count)

There are differences though.

First off, Israel has a significant security problem, and has been attacked by it's neighbours before, many of whom had the avowed intention of driving the Isralei state of the face of the map. Secondly, Israel has long had WMD (nukes) but has yet to use them. THAT is more than can be said for Saddam. Also, yes, there are many resolutions against Israel, but are you aware there are different classes of UN Resolution. Some are little more than admonitions - slapped wrists. Some are not - they are MANDATORY. The significant ones that Iraq was in breach of (like 1441) were of the mandatory class. Go check the nature of the resolutions on Israel.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not defending some of Israels actions. I think they are WELL out of order. BUT, the situation is different and it is not all the Israeli's fault. BOTH sides have to share the blame.

[spikegifted]

Is it not true that the only reason why the UN never delivered mandatory solutions on Israel is because the US will veto them if it was ever tabled. Additionally, no many countries on the UN Security Council, permanent members or otherwise, will want to cross the US these days.

We all know that Saddam had WMD up to 2000 when the UN Weapon Inspectors last went to Iraq. However, I think Saddam has somehow gotten rid of these WMDs between 2000 and 2002 (or 2003). Remember that weapons dossier that the Iraqis delivered to the UN in December 2002? Well, it said it has nothing and how the victors are pretty much finding nothing... I have to agree that the fact that few people were prepare to believe them was due to the number of times Saddam and his regime crossed the line. However, so far, it would appear that Saddam was telling the truth.

Don't forget, it does Iraq no favors to admit that it has no WMD - it makes the country look weak. Saddam's regime is not based on religion nor nationalism, it was based on fear - fear of people living within it and fear of people living around it. To actually admit on an international stage that it has no WMD sends out all the wrong signals to Iraq's enemies - the country suddenly looks like an empty shell (which was what it was). Saddam's standing amongst Arab leaders will be diminished and that's something Saddam couldn't and probably wouldn't be able to handle.

[G4Z]

thanks for that spikegifted, thats exactly the way I see it. Fair enough saddam is not a trustworth character but in the run up to war I watched a lot of news and it did appear to me that the weapons inspectors were being allowed to do thier work.

Why couldnt we wait for blix to finish?

The reasons our governments gave was that saddam was an immenent threat, if anything saddam was less of a threat than he ever was, he had only 1/3rd of the original army from desert storm he had no airforce and it appears very few rockets.

Halabaja, that happened in 1998 before desert storm and something that was done with weapons provided by the good old USA. I think its fair to say that in the interveneing 14 years it is possible that saddam abandoned his chemical weapons program and destroyed them simply because of the problems he was having hiding it.

[Saracen]

Originally posted by G4Z
Halabaja, that happened in 1998 before desert storm and something that was done with weapons provided by the good old USA. I think its fair to say that in the interveneing 14 years it is possible that saddam abandoned his chemical weapons program and destroyed them simply because of the problems he was having hiding it.

You mean 1988, not '98.

The claim that these were US supplied chemical munitions is often made and never substantiated. There is, however, evidence from other atacks that weapons like mustard gas, which was one of the weapons used at Halabja, are NOT consistent with US manufacture. Mustard gas can be manufactured in different ways, using different processes and with different precursors. The samples taken by the UN from other Iraqi attacks, and analysed in Switzerland and Sweden, were NOT consistent with the methods used by the US. All mustard manufacture by the US used the Levinstein process, and the absence of polysulphides and presence of trace elements of sulphur is not consistent with this process. It IS, however, consistent with the process used by the Soviet Union, but it is also quite consistent with manufacture inside Iraq. No proof has, to the best of my knowledge, ever surfaced as to exactly where these weapons were made.

Sure, the US has supplied materials that can be used in chemical weapons manufacture. Chlorine, for instance. This is, of course, a dual purpose chemical and intergral to the purification of water.

Many accusations have been made that the US supplied chemicals that could be used to make weapons. However, the same can be said of many other nations, including but not limited to, the UK, East Germany, West Germany, France, Brazil, Czechoslovakia, Switzerland and Egypt.

The whole business is murky, and hard evidence sparse, but I cannot see how you can claim that the Halabja weapons WERE supplied by the US. I'd like to know what evidence you've seen for that? Not speculation or accusation, but evidence.

[spikegifted]

There's no substantive link between the US and the chemical weapons used by the Saddam regime. However, it is not entirely unbelievable to think that the technology came from the West. Don't forget, after the Islamic Revolution in Iran, Iraq was seen as the counter-balance to those Islamic revolutionaries and many Western powers supported Saddam during the Iraq-Iran War.

If we were to get righteous about these things, nearly every single NATO arms producing country (that's the US, UK, France, Canada, Italy, Germany...) have at one stage or another directly or indirectly supported a regime that is considered 'evil'. If you go back far enough, Arnie thought Hitler was cool and he touched women's bums. International geopolitics is one very messy area to play with these things. What is considered 'right' can be considered 'wrong' the next.

[G4Z]

yes sorry 88 my mistake, i entirely meant to put 88 I have no idea why I typed 98.

Your right that other countries supplied saddam with chemicals but I am sure america did supply saddam with chemical and biological weapons.

"A letter written in 1995 by former CDC Director David Satcher to former Senator Donald W. Riegle, Jr., points out that the U.S. Government provided nearly two dozen viral and bacterial samples to Iraqi scientists in 1985--samples that included the plague, botulism, and anthrax, among other deadly diseases. "


I found that on this page : http://www.hnn.us/articles/1283.html


I think it is fait to say that the americans did supply or at the very least aid iraqi development of these weapons and it seems like they didnt care what saddam did with them so long as the oil market remained stable.

[Blub2k]

However, the same can be said of many other nations, including but not limited to, the UK, East Germany, West Germany, France, Brazil, Czechoslovakia, Switzerland and Egypt

True, true, thing is though none of these countries were involved in an invasion attempt on the basis of these materials/weapons. What is your point as you are not exposing or bringing to light any hypocrisy??

[Blub2k]

excepting the UK

[G4Z]

welll blub, after all of these countries helped saddam develop these weapons (super gun anybody?) they all promptly attacked iraq in gulf war round 1.


I think bill hicks was right when he said


"I'm so sick of arming the world, then sending troops over to destroy the ****ing arms, you know what I mean? We keep arming these little countries, then we go and blow the rubbishrubbishrubbishrubbish out of them. We're like the bullies of the world, y'know. We're like Jack Palance in the movie Shane, throwing the pistol at the sheepherder's feet.
"Pick it up."
"I don't wanna pick it up, Mister, you'll shoot me."
"Pick up the gun."
"Mister, I don't want no trouble. I just came downtown here to get some hard rock candy for my kids, some gingham for my wife. I don't even know what gingham is, but she goes through about ten rolls a week of that stuff. I ain't looking for no trouble, Mister."
"Pick up the gun."
(He picks it up. Three shots ring out.)
"You all saw him - he had a gun."

[spikegifted]

That's pretty good, but that's not entirely accurate of how the world functions.

Back in the good days when there were two 'superpowers', for any budding developing nation, they want to attract Western aid for commerce, infrastructure and military. Depending on where the country is, it has a number of carrots that they can dangle in front of the West - oil, other mineral resources, cheap labor, suitable sites for bases, etc. The more of these carrots they've, the more willing the West (or other potential powers-to-be) will be prepared to give them the support they want.

The West for their part were willing to ignor or overlook the negatives of these regimes. The saying was: "We know he's a son of a b!tch, but at least he's our son of a b!tch." As time went on, more and more developing countries around the world have arsenals of weapons, given by/sourced from/funded by, etc the West. Since we in the West is trying to have the moral high-ground in every argument going, so we soon came unstuck - the 'son of a b!tch' that we supported turned out to be a blood sucking a-hole who murders his own people, sucks up all the aid money and threaten his neighbors...

Now, we've a problem! The West has spent lots of money and time to build up this 'son of a b!tch' to that we've another country 'on side'. But now that the Cold War is over, his excesses cannot be overlooked. To make matter worse, because we have gradually withdrawn support to him, he's now making threatening noises towards us!! We have to teach the 'son of a b!tch' a lesson!!

That's what happened over and over again...

[G4Z]

I think I like bill hicks version myself.

But yeah, It is a big problem and I dont see an easy way around it, possibly the root cause is capitalism because of the drive to find new resources and energy sources. we should really be looking towards renewable sources and using other materials but because that costs money and selling raw material makes money there is a resistance to change. I remember 10 years ago when I was told at school we only had 40 years of fossil fuels left and still nobody seems to worry, I think they dont worry because there is a lot more out there and they arent gonna start to think about other methods until they have exhausted it. Maybe when that happens we will be forced to change as a society. I dunno, could be well off track there but I am pretty caned atm.