http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_1.html

Pretty interesting if you ask me...it appears Saddam was still deceiving even after being overthrown. Maybe our intelligence wasn't as bad as people say it was.

I was just going to post this, seems teh same UN everyones so fired up about taking over is saying the same thing bush has been saying. so someones got to lose face here, wonder who its going to be.

Doesn't suprise me at all.

I have posted that Hussein was packing WMD's forever. I would like to see this come to full light. It was and is obvious that Hussein had them but some people believe that we lied and no matter what I post I am told I am wrong.
I posted Blix's report to the UN that said 1 metric ton of VX is unaccounted for and that it appears that the WMD eqipment is being sold as scrap to Jordan, Belgium and other countries.

BV, you are not wrong, you are wrong on the fact, when you say Saddam “had” weapons prior to our invasion. Blix did say we couldn’t account for 1 metric ton, yet President Bush said he had “weapons of mass destruction” which is not true. The reason we invaded Iraq was because Saddam was a threat, because of the weapons he possessed.

Well if they were shipped, then shouldn’t we go after and try and find where they went and who’s hands have them now? What’s funny is that the weapons that were so dangerous to our safety are still “unaccounted for” because we haven’t found them in Iraq, and we are spending all of our time in Iraq, but yet they were shipped elsewhere…and so what are we doing about that? Sending more troops and money to Iraq? We are still in danger of those weapons, because they were shipped, elsewhere, and I don’t see any hard searching or “military plans” to find and get them out of the hands of where they were shipped to.

We are so keen on making Iraq a democracy, we are forgetting our prime reason for going to war. That was to make us safer, and yet we have increased the membership to Al Quidea, the weapons that were not accounted for are still missing, and we now have a 90% chance of an attack.

It makes me frustrated, when you try and justify our invasion, but you don’t understand that Bush’s reason was not that we couldn’t “account” for the weapons, but that he had the weapons. The reason he said he had weapons, is because no one would go to war on the “thought” he had weapons because we couldn’t account for them.

Blix has also said we didn’t have enough sources to invade Iraq, so your report from him, that you are saying is making our war justifiable, seems to not be enough for the man that wrote it.

OD not going to argue this point anymore until we have more material to use.
But I would say that it appears that the no WMD chant is going to go down in flames real soon.

Maybe when the Bush administration has their October surprise.

:matrix:

overdose and the rest of his liberal ilk are flip floppers on the WMD issue. it seems that they can go either way as neccessary. either saddam had them and they are gone, or he destroyed them as the UN asked. make up your mind.

Good Job, Trav. You make a strong case.

Originally posted by Travh20
overdose and the rest of his liberal ilk are flip floppers on the WMD issue. it seems that they can go either way as neccessary. either saddam had them and they are gone, or he destroyed them as the UN asked. make up your mind.
A month ago I would have argued with you Trav, but today I would agree in part. SOme of them are not all. But so are some right wingers.
It is so easy to see that Hussein had WMD's and very hard to ignore the reports of the inspectors some quote saying that they dont exist.
I am sorry but I am not guilable enough to believe that Hussein disarmed.

truth hurts doesnt it overdose? for the past few months you have argued until you were blue in the face that saddam destroyed all of his WMD's becasue the UN told him to. now you are going to attack the adminstration for being behind the curve on tracking down the WMD's saddam shipped out of the country right before the war. pick a story and stick to it.

Originally posted by Overdose
Good Job, Trav. You make a strong case.
Case was made by Blix in his report ot the UN, AP then made it again when they wrote the story saying that the WMD equipment, some brand new, were being sold as scrap to Jordan and other countries. And again in this thread link.

Better put “gullible” under my user icon. Anyway. If he didn’t disarm, and he shipped them away, then we should of gone to that area, and found the weapons. Yet, those weapons are still out there, dangerous to the United States, while we sit in Iraq.

(Read my post, near the top, again Trav, you may understand my stance a little more)

your stance is whatever has the best chane to make bush look bad, be it saddam destroyed his weapons or shipped them out to another country, whichever is convienient at the moment.

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
Case was made by Blix in his report ot the UN, AP then made it again when they wrote the story saying that the WMD equipment, some brand new, were being sold as scrap to Jordan and other countries. And again in this thread link.

That would not be the case President Bush made, because he said Saddam “had the weapons” not that we couldn’t “account for some” or that he “shipped them away”

Oh and why aren’t we going to those areas and finding the weapons. But yet we are in Iraq…funny how these weapons are such a threat, but we ignore that they aren’t in Iraq, that they were shipped away, but we still invade Iraq, while they are still out in the hands of the “evil doers”

overdose, you are the biggest parrot on the board. when did you get your new talking point memo to change stance from "saddam destroyed all his WMD's as the UN requested, as the UN inspectors said so" to "saddam shipped them out and they are a threat that can kill us any second, why arent we tracking them down?". idiot.

By the way you dont understand that if we just are finding out where the WMD might be how would we have just passed through Iraq and gone into another country? Talk about mismanagement of a war, that would require 3 times the troops we are using now and would have left the rear troops exposed to a full military to fight with no reason. TO attack a country and not remove their military is almost criminal.
Tactics OD , you cant start an action and then change tack in the middle.

No, actually a link was posted, that showed before we were invading Iraq, that they were being shipped, and we didn’t follow them, we just invaded Iraq.

I’m an “idiot”, yes. He did destroy the weapons, and the UN inspectors did say he did. They also said they couldn’t account for some of the weapons. Which some were supposedly shipped out, but I still don’t see a huge search squad for that, nor do I see President Bush speaking about it. So it must not be that huge of an issue or reason for the war.

Have you ever heard of a hypothetical? Well, I’m giving you guys the benefit of the doubt, and saying he did ship some away…because, Saddam is not a good guy, and I can believe that he would do something like that. Although I don’t see “huge evidence” in supporting it. But, I’ve listed my reasons if he did indeed “ship them away”.

Reasons:

Well if they were shipped, then shouldn’t we go after and try and find where they went and who’s hands have them now? What’s funny is that the weapons that were so dangerous to our safety are still “unaccounted for” because we haven’t found them in Iraq, and we are spending all of our time in Iraq, but yet they were shipped elsewhere…and so what are we doing about that? Sending more troops and money to Iraq? We are still in danger of those weapons, because they were shipped, elsewhere, and I don’t see any hard searching or “military plans” to find and get them out of the hands of where they were shipped to.

We are so keen on making Iraq a democracy, we are forgetting our prime reason for going to war. That was to make us safer, and yet we have increased the membership to Al Quidea, the weapons that were not accounted for are still missing, and we now have a 90% chance of an attack.

It makes me frustrated, when you try and justify our invasion, but you don’t understand that Bush’s reason was not that we couldn’t “account” for the weapons, but that he had the weapons. The reason he said he had weapons, is because no one would go to war on the “thought” he had weapons because we couldn’t account for them.

Blix has also said we didn’t have enough sources to invade Iraq, so your report from him, that you are saying is making our war justifiable, seems to not be enough for the man that wrote it.

keep talking overdose, you discredit everything yuo have said up to this point with every key storke. Are you denying that your main argument up to now has been that sadam destroyed the WMD, and that the UN inspections confirmed this? I have not see you post a single post about the possiblilty of saddam shipping them out. anyway, where do you suppose they went, should we attack that country right away? waht if that country sends them out? are you willing to atack countrys unitl they are found? your in over your head and contradicting yourself now.

First of all Trav, you haven’t posted here for awhile, and I doubt you saw the thread, and if you want to, I encourage you to go find it.

Now, you say I’m being a hypocrite? And that I’m in over my head. Well, I guess I am, but here I go.

The UN conformed that he didn’t have WMD’s, in his country. That he did disarm, because he had nothing. They also confirmed that many weapons were missing.

Well I’ve said all along that you don’t go to war on if they are “missing” but fact that he “has them” and the UN said he didn’t. So I haven’t been a hypocrite.

And I don’t think we should “attack” every country until they are found, but that we should go search, and fight terrorism, and not occupy where the weapons “were”. Because the weapons that are so dangerous to us, are still out in the world, and we are spending all of our time in Iraq.

this shows you have no concept of grand stategy. if you think we are simply occupying the country where the WMD's were, and thats it, you have no clue about what its all about. you will never, ever be 100% certain of anything in global politics and intelligence, so in other words you are never willing to do anything at all but verify and confirm the unverifyable and unconfirmable, which in your little mind means peace on earth, until a bomb goes off at your house.

Aww shucks, Trav, you caught me again.

Trav a point I have tried to make to OD forever.
OD to follow the weapons would have involved going back to the UN and alerting the country that we know, and then another move.... This could have gone on until they were here and then you would have screamed that Bush allowed hundreds of thousands of Americans to die.

We left the UN to invade Iraq, so I don’t think President Bush would have been worried about what the UN would have thought.

Oh and I thought Al Quidea was already here, and how they already have plans for an attack that we are 90% sure will happen? But yes, going where the weapons “were” while the weapons that are dangerous to us, are in the hands of the “evil doers” is just so wonderful!

Originally posted by Overdose
We left the UN to invade Iraq, so I don’t think President Bush would have been worried about what the UN would have thought.

Oh and I thought Al Quidea was already here, and how they already have plans for an attack that we are 90% sure will happen? But yes, going where the weapons “were” while the weapons that are dangerous to us, are in the hands of the “evil doers” is just so wonderful!
When the hell did we leave the UN? I could have sworn we were still a member.

BV, I meant we left the UN to invade Iraq. Wow, blowing things out of proportion?

We left to invade? The ambassador never had to leave so we could invade Iraq. TO word it the way you did is to say we withdrew from the UN so we could invade Iraq, but this is misleading.
Bush went to the UN and asked numerous times for the resolutions needed and we got them.
So we didnt even turn our back to the UN to invade Iraq.

If he had gotten the resolutions, France, Germany and Russia would have, had to vote yes on them. They didn’t…so actually he left before the resolutions could have been passed.

Anyway back on topic, you have not told me why, exactly, we Bush said Saddam “had weapons” not that we couldn’t “account for them” or that he “shipped them away”

No we got the resolutions and by the way Germany doesnt have to vote on anything for it to go through. They do not have veto power on anything in the UN.
I said Hussein had them, and he did. If he shipped them out prior and during the invasion then he had them, if he destroyed them as we attacked then he had them. No matter how you spin it if these stories prove to be true then Hussein had them and thats all that I have said. He had them and would give them to our enemies, well both points would prove true if these stories prove true.

Funny, I see “if” a lot. Without these stories proven, it’s meaningless. Come debate me when they are.

I said if so you wouldnt say I was assuming.
The missing tons of WMD and the brand new equipment showing up in scrap yards around the world is a good sign that they will be proven and of course every member of those intellegence commitees say it will come to light soon and Tenet will be vindicated.

Missing does not mean he had them in his country, nor does it mean he didn’t destroy them, it just means he could, potentially, still have them, or that he could have given them away. And I don’t believe in going to war on assumption.

Funny, they haven’t been used yet, nor have any been found…and the theory that he shipped them away, is still in question. As I said you used a lot of “if” or “when this is proven” meaning it isn’t proven, so debate me when it is.

Originally posted by Overdose
Missing does not mean he had them in his country, nor does it mean he didn’t destroy them, it just means he could, potentially, still have them, or that he could have given them away. And I don’t believe in going to war on assumption.

Funny, they haven’t been used yet, nor have any been found…and the theory that he shipped them away, is still in question. As I said you used a lot of “if” or “when this is proven” meaning it isn’t proven, so debate me when it is.
Sarin gas in roadside bomb, was used, just didnt mix because it was never fired from a artillery piece.
Even terrorist arent dumb enough to prove that WMD were present, they would lose all of their public opinion. But I would go out on a limb and say that once the proof is out we will see the WMD used in attacks.

Sarin Gas does account for all the WMD’s Bush said Saddam “had” not that he was “missing”

..........lalala

Originally posted by Overdose
Sarin Gas does account for all the WMD’s Bush said Saddam “had” not that he was “missing”

..........lalala
Sarin gas is a WMD and I dont think he had one shell laying around and the terrorist happen to find it. I think since it wasnt labled as a chem weapon that they used it by accident.
These groups will probably not use these wmd in Iraq, it would place an unpopular view on them by the rest of the radicals.
Killing Muslims is bad for business unless of course they are working with us.

So if they aren’t going to be targeting us from Iraq, why are we spending almost all of our time, money and troops there?

Originally posted by Overdose
So if they aren’t going to be targeting us from Iraq, why are we spending almost all of our time, money and troops there?
No I said they wouldnt target Iraq, they will of course target us from within.
Jose Padilla, sound familiar?

i personally dont give a shit what these people want to say now. when the inspectors went in, they found nothing, the whole idea was that he was to get rid of them, he did ! i dont know what everyones sounding vindicated for. this proves shit. we couldnt find them, and didnt,and still havent....everyone's trying to say "see, see we told you". told us what!?. we went to war, and we hadnt found anything. if he dismantled, isnt that what he was suppose to do ? all you guys were doing is looking for just a glimmer of hope. but the truth of the matter is still we didnt find anything to send us to war, and that was the point....you guys kill me. we have ten thousand articles that you guys didnt believe, when they said that they didnt have them or couldnt find them....you have ONE article, and now everything in IT is the truth. those very same people said that they werent there.........give me a fuckin break, grabbing at straws.....thats all

I don't think there's any debate about the fact that Saddam had WMD's. The problem I have is not that our government said he had them and we need to go to war. My problem is our government said they knew where they were, when they clearly hadn't the first damn clue as to their location.

You can debate all you want about what happened to them, but our government lied to us when they said they knew where they were.

Donald Rumsfeld:

On March 30, 11 days into the war, Rumsfeld said in an ABC News interview when asked about WMDs: "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."

In retrospect his vague statement should have given us a clue that he was full of it, but we were certain that we would find the hidden stockpiles that some people still believe are still there.

just becasue they were not where they said they would be doesnt mean they lied. they were there, and were moved. quit with the lie crap. you liberals are trying so hard to attach the lie label to bush. for a label to stick there has to be some truth to it, people know bush did not lie to them, and that he went with what he had, thats why the lie thing just isnt sticking with average americans. o only the leftists keep saying that, its not working. I would rather have a leader who took chances then someone who sat around waiting to be 100% sure,because there is no sch thing as 100% sure.

Originally posted by Travh20
just becasue they were not where they said they would be doesnt mean they lied.

When someone tells you they are certain of something they are NOT certain of, that's a lie.

they were there, and were moved.

Really? You have proof of that I'm sure.


quit with the lie crap. you liberals are trying so hard to attach the lie label to bush. for a label to stick there has to be some truth to it, people know bush did not lie to them, and that he went with what he had, thats why the lie thing just isnt sticking with average americans. o only the leftists keep saying that, its not working.

I'm not trying to label anyone Trav, and I never mentioned Bush in my post, I was quoting Rumsfeld. You can't see anything but "liberal" duplicity, even though it was the government who was doing the misleading. Sad.

I would rather have a leader who took chances then someone who sat around waiting to be 100% sure,because there is no sch thing as 100% sure.

I agree, it's very rare to have intelligence that is 100% certain. I would rather have a leader who was honest about that fact, rather than one who will tell the American people what he thinks he has to say to justify his plans for war. I'm not debating the right or wrong of attacking Iraq, I'm debating the right or wrong of our government telling the American people that they are certain of things that they are not certain about.

Trav, how many times does the government have to mislead you before you begin to distrust them?

"I would rather have a leader who took chances then someone who sat around waiting to be 100% sure,because there is no sch thing as 100% sure." TRAVH20

I totally agree 100%! I rather have a president who is a hawk than a mouse in a field like Gore for president. Bush is the one who is taking dramatic measures to make sure that another 9/11 will not happen. I am not saying that it will never happen again but anything is possible. But i like how Bush is taking measures to protect our country. The money and funds that we are providing to our miltary is every penny worth it.

Originally posted by bigboy4040
"I would rather have a leader who took chances then someone who sat around waiting to be 100% sure,because there is no sch thing as 100% sure." TRAVH20

I totally agree 100%! I rather have a president who is a hawk than a mouse in a field like Gore for president. Bush is the one who is taking dramatic measures to make sure that another 9/11 will not happen. I am not saying that it will never happen again but anything is possible. But i like how Bush is taking measures to protect our country. The money and funds that we are providing to our miltary is every penny worth it. what a joke......those guys were from within..........whats stopping them..? we're over there......there over here ! and , you dont know if gore is a mouse or a hawk....but i know bush is a rat....and the problem is bigboy, the money may be going to the military, but its not going to the soldiers. these guys are filing bankruptcy, losing family over finances. give me a damn break.....there's a lie for you....money for the military....but who ?

good one vile !!

Originally posted by Travh20
just becasue they were not where they said they would be doesnt mean they lied. they were there, and were moved. quit with the lie crap. you liberals are trying so hard to attach the lie label to bush. for a label to stick there has to be some truth to it, people know bush did not lie to them, and that he went with what he had, thats why the lie thing just isnt sticking with average americans. o only the leftists keep saying that, its not working. I would rather have a leader who took chances then someone who sat around waiting to be 100% sure,because there is no sch thing as 100% sure. i dont want anyone TAKING A CHANCE with my life.....lets know first....this is what taking a chance will get you. now that liar has to compound lies just to make the first lie look legit. our lives were not in danger over there, our lives are in danger over here ! what do you do here !?........where's the plane that hit the pentagon ?......

calm down korg, you can go about your selfish lifestyle all you want, your in no danger. al qeada is focused on iraq, and with their limited resources will be hard pressed to commit on two fronts. wait, what was that? thats right, AL Qeada is hard pressed to do two things at once, not us. I know it goes against all you ahve head, but believe it or not al qeada is not in a better position then us to do more then one thing at a time. I know its been said a hundred times that we cant fight iraq and terror at the same time, but have you ever heard anyone say that al qeada is hard pressed to focus on mre then one thing at a time, or are they still 10 feet tall and bulletproof?

Trav, Al Quidea is in America, and John Ashcroft said we have about a 90% chance of an attack from them…so I don’t know what you are talking about.

Also if you look at the statistics, Al Quidea membership has risen as a direct result of us being in Iraq, and the Prisoner Abuse scandal.

Al Qaeda was in America in 1993 and before, but tats not the point.
Korg no one other than Terrorists have endangered your life, the government responded to attacks on this country that started in 1983. I am sorry that you feel as though you might have to do something to help protect this country. Anyone who calls themselves an American should be ready to stand shoulder to shoulder to defend her.
Vile, I dont distrust the government, I understand lies are told, but the WMD's were not a lie, bad intel or maybe just too many warnings that we were coming and they were moved. You can all scream that Bush lied to start a war against Hussein for personal reasons but that would be ridiculous, every President since Reagan has wanted him gone.
Yes we helped Hussein in a war against Iran, because Iran was behind the Beirut bombing and other terror attacks. I would say we used Soviets in WWII to help get rid of a mutual enemy and we have been used by others as well.

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran

Vile, I dont distrust the government, I understand lies are told, but the WMD's were not a lie, bad intel or maybe just too many warnings that we were coming and they were moved. You can all scream that Bush lied to start a war against Hussein for personal reasons but that would be ridiculous, every President since Reagan has wanted him gone.


Beirut, you're slipping. I never suggested that Bush attacked Iraq for personal reasons. I merely pointed out the FACT that Rumsfeld LIED when he said he knew where the WMD's were.

Now do you have anything to refute the fact that he lied? I would like to point out, before you claim they were moved, that Rumsfeld made this statement 11 days after we invaded Iraq. Also, if they were moved as a result of his statements, is Rumsfeld then guilty of giving vital intelligence to the enemy?

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Beirut, you're slipping. I never suggested that Bush attacked Iraq for personal reasons. I merely pointed out the FACT that Rumsfeld LIED when he said he knew where the WMD's were.

Now do you have anything to refute the fact that he lied? I would like to point out, before you claim they were moved, that Rumsfeld made this statement 11 days after we invaded Iraq. Also, if they were moved as a result of his statements, is Rumsfeld then guilty of giving vital intelligence to the enemy?
Vile my comment was directed at Korg and OD but since you asked....
Rumsfeld may have lied, he may have given intel to the enemy or maybe we know where they were and yes they were moved after the invasion. We did go to many sites that tested positive for traces of VX, Sarin and mustard gas but the sites were empty.
So it is a possibility that any of the above could have happened.
My point is, Hussein had the WMD's, they were in Iraq either right before we attacked of right after. Maybe still there just hidden.

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
Al Qaeda was in America in 1993 and before, but tats not the point.
Korg no one other than Terrorists have endangered your life, the government responded to attacks on this country that started in 1983. I am sorry that you feel as though you might have to do something to help protect this country. Anyone who calls themselves an American should be ready to stand shoulder to shoulder to defend her.
Vile, I dont distrust the government, I understand lies are told, but the WMD's were not a lie, bad intel or maybe just too many warnings that we were coming and they were moved. You can all scream that Bush lied to start a war against Hussein for personal reasons but that would be ridiculous, every President since Reagan has wanted him gone.
Yes we helped Hussein in a war against Iran, because Iran was behind the Beirut bombing and other terror attacks. I would say we used Soviets in WWII to help get rid of a mutual enemy and we have been used by others as well. man, i would fight til death for this country, as would most people you guys think wouldnt......but man, i wouldnt want to come home with one leg only to find out that some guy didnt get his facts str8.....thats all BV

Originally posted by Travh20
calm down korg, you can go about your selfish lifestyle all you want, your in no danger. al qeada is focused on iraq, and with their limited resources will be hard pressed to commit on two fronts. wait, what was that? thats right, AL Qeada is hard pressed to do two things at once, not us. I know it goes against all you ahve head, but believe it or not al qeada is not in a better position then us to do more then one thing at a time. I know its been said a hundred times that we cant fight iraq and terror at the same time, but have you ever heard anyone say that al qeada is hard pressed to focus on mre then one thing at a time, or are they still 10 feet tall and bulletproof? travh.......................man, ......im speechless......but O.D. said it for me. ...but......well..........nevermind. you should be in politics, because i say A.......you say Z.........i dont get it

Korg if you defend the nation and are injured it doesnt really matter if the WMD's were at point a or moved to point b. The facts are we were attacked and the enemy was using Iraq and other countries to train in. Salman Pak and since these countries have supported terror is it such a big leap to think they would give the terrorists WMD's to attack us? No it isnt.

Actually it does matter if they were moved from point A to point B. Why would we attack, and spend almost 100% of our time where they were (Point A), when they are in Point B. It makes no sense to me. The weapons are still out, and dangerous to America, while we are sitting in Iraq, giving them a Democracy, while their new leaders are being pelted off one by one.

The fact remains President Bush said Saddam had the WMD’s, and Blix’s report said some were missing, but he has also said that we had no evidence to go into Iraq, and that Saddam had NO WMD’s.

OD you are achieving the a whole new class of naive, Blix never said Hussein didnt have them, Kay never said that either.
The only person here that is saying it is you and maybe Korg.
If they were moved while we were invading Iraq then like I said many times, it is not possible to just cut and run. Once we took Hussein out of power we had an obligation to reinstate an Iraqi government and help them rebuild.
The WMD's were there, Vile agrees, and now they are missing, well now we need to find them.
But we have to finish in Iraq first, by the way they might still be in Iraq, we cant possibly search every square inch of the country.

Blix told the council that no weapons of mass destruction were found in the country
http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/feb/14iraq1.htm


The chief UN weapons inspector, Hans Blix, said he was starting to suspect Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction in advance of the war on Iraq, a German newspaper reported Friday."I am obviously very interested in the question of whether or not there were weapons of mass destruction, and I am beginning to suspect there possibly were none," Mr Blix told the Berlin daily Der Tagesspiegel. http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/05/1614090_comment.php

The former UN chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, believes that Iraq destroyed most of its weapons of mass destruction 10 years ago, according to an interview broadcast yesterday.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Stor...44511%2C00.html

And I don’t care what “Vile” says, he is a friend, but I don’t have to agree with him on every issue. I firmly believe Saddam was no threat, and I have the quotes, sources of the UN to prove it.

ok you have posted non official articles, once again here is the UN report by Blix to the Security Council, where does it say Hussein doesnt have them?
Remember the rules of evidence, to prove a negative the evidence must be conclusive. To prove a positive one must prove that the conditions existed and that one had access to the materials. Also a past history must be equated in the formula.
Not my rules by the way.

UN Report on WMD's (http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm)

Kay states: "I don't think they existed." Kay further clarifies that what was at issue was whether Iraq had engaged in large-scale WMD programs existing in the 1990s, saying: "I don't think there was a large-scale production programme in the Nineties."

My non-official reports, are quoting the very people, who wrote that in the UN. Your “official” report, says he was missing the weapons…not that he “had” the weapons.

Are you willing to gamble on what one man thinks in the face of his OWN evidence?
I hope not.

Are you willing to go to war on the thought that some weapons are missing?
I should hope not.

you were. you are askign why we are not tracking down the weapons that are unaccounted for, and one can only assume that whatever country they were smuggled into will act identically to how saddam acted when he was questioned about WMD's, that is lie and stall and decieve.

Originally posted by Overdose
Are you willing to go to war on the thought that some weapons are missing?
I should hope not.
Yep, more than willing. I would go to war in a sec if I thought a country who had ties to terror was missing 1 ton of VX.

The links are not proven, even Bush does not think there is a tie. The 1 ton that was missing, seems to still be out in the world, so attacking a country where the 1 ton left is pointless. But then again, I’m still waiting for the “proven facts” that it was shipped out…Because if it was not shipped out, then it seems to not be in Iraq…because if a whole 1 ton was missing, I’m sure we would have found it by now.

Originally posted by Overdose
The links are not proven, even Bush does not think there is a tie. The 1 ton that was missing, seems to still be out in the world, so attacking a country where the 1 ton left is pointless. But then again, I’m still waiting for the “proven facts” that it was shipped out…Because if it was not shipped out, then it seems to not be in Iraq…because if a whole 1 ton was missing, I’m sure we would have found it by now.
Go do some research I think even an idiot could hide a metric ton of VX in 43500000 square miles.
Also I have linked the official UN document three times, even though you quote the author and one of his inspectors, you say it proves nothing.
By the way where are the other 199 inspectors in all of this?

The UN searched almost all of Iraq, before we started our invasion in Iraq…so…maybe you should understand that they could have found it, and forced Saddam to destroy the weapons, and then the “missing weapons” (That accounted for all of the weapons that Bush said Saddam HAD) wouldn’t have been such an issue. But we kicked them out before they were done searching.

UNITED NATIONS -- A report from U.N. weapons inspectors to be released today says they now believe there were no weapons of mass destruction of any significance in Iraq after 1994, according to two U.N. diplomats who have seen the document.
http://www.keepmedia.com/ShowItemDe...2&oliID=213

The CIA official in charge of the search for weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq has said no such weapons have so far been found. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3157246.stm
"I think that the vast majority of people are feeling that there is very little likelihood that they had anything, and the biggest chance is that they destroyed them in 1991," he said.
http://www.dawn.com/2003/12/24/int2.htm

"We have not found at this point actual weapons," the expert told reporters after giving closed door briefings to the Senate and House of Representatives intelligence committees on the work of the Iraq Survey Group.
http://www.news.com.au/common/story...255E2%2C00.html

Former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter “Iraq not a threat” http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/09/08/ritter.iraq/

200 people could nto have even searched 1/8 of Iraq in 20 years. That is absurd.


The CIA official in charge of the search for weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq has said no such weapons have so far been found.
Does so far mean they dont exist?


UNITED NATIONS -- A report from U.N. weapons inspectors to be released today says they now believe there were no weapons of mass destruction of any significance in Iraq after 1994, according to two U.N. diplomats who have seen the document.
A direct contradiiction of the UN report itself, so we could call that statement a falsehood by those officials.


Quote something from the document that the UN used, quote something from an official report.

I ask the same of you, quote something of the official report, that said Saddam “had” weapons, not that he was missing some.

I’ve posted what Kay and Blix have said, and they all say Saddam was not a threat; and we had no evidence to invade Iraq, etc. So you’re “official report” seemed to not be enough evidence for even the people who wrote it.

"Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade." (The classified version of the NIE gave an estimate of five to seven years, according to this article by Kenneth M. Pollack, former Iraq and counter-proliferation expert.) So he was going to have a nuke somewhere around 2007-2010, and therefore we should invade now and save the Christmas rush. For the horse's mouth on the NIE, the CIA's website. Note that it reaffirms that the nuclear weapon at least was five to seven years away, and that nowhere does it present unequivocal evidence of testing live biological and chemical WMDs after the Gulf War.

From the same article, an interesting adjunct:

"More-cautious analysts had argued that the NIE's assessment that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons was unlikely, because such munitions deteriorate rapidly and can be quickly produced in bulk if production lines and precursor agents are available (making stockpiles unnecessary as well as inefficient). These analysts instead believed that Iraq had a "just-in-time" production capability—that it could churn out these weapons as needed, using hidden or dual-use facilities. But not even this more conservative scenario was borne out by the ISG's [the Iraq Survey Group, David Kay's investigators -ed.] investigations. Sources told the group that Saddam and his son Uday had each, on separate occasions in 2001 and 2002, asked officials associated with Iraq's chemical-warfare program how long it would take to produce chemical agents and weapons. One official reportedly told Saddam that it would take six months to produce mustard gas (among the easiest such agents to manufacture); another told Uday that it would take two months to produce mustard gas and two years to produce sarin (a simple nerve agent). The questions do not suggest the presence of large stockpiles. The answers do not support a just-in-time capability."

Ok I will give you the quotes you asked for, but give me a few to find them. Also, maybe you are placing to much on the backs of men who want a job. Blix says to the UN that it appears Hussein was hiding WMD and the material to make them, he said he was missing 1 metric ton and he said Hussein was not cooperating in the spirit of the UN resolutions but in the media he says we dont know if he had them. Maybe he was just milking the job or maybe he was in a pay off scheme to keep us from finding the smoking gun in the Oil For Food Program or maybe he just didnt want to see a war and would say what he needed to to achieve these goals.
Be back in a few with the Quotes you asked for.

CIA Director George Tenet testified before Congress in February 2001 that Iraq posed no immediate threat to the United States or to other countries in the Middle East.

........hmmmmmm?

Originally posted by Overdose
"Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade." (The classified version of the NIE gave an estimate of five to seven years, according to this article by Kenneth M. Pollack, former Iraq and counter-proliferation expert.) So he was going to have a nuke somewhere around 2007-2010, and therefore we should invade now and save the Christmas rush. For the horse's mouth on the NIE, the CIA's website. Note that it reaffirms that the nuclear weapon at least was five to seven years away, and that nowhere does it present unequivocal evidence of testing live biological and chemical WMDs after the Gulf War.

From the same article, an interesting adjunct:

"More-cautious analysts had argued that the NIE's assessment that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons was unlikely, because such munitions deteriorate rapidly and can be quickly produced in bulk if production lines and precursor agents are available (making stockpiles unnecessary as well as inefficient). These analysts instead believed that Iraq had a "just-in-time" production capability—that it could churn out these weapons as needed, using hidden or dual-use facilities. But not even this more conservative scenario was borne out by the ISG's [the Iraq Survey Group, David Kay's investigators -ed.] investigations. Sources told the group that Saddam and his son Uday had each, on separate occasions in 2001 and 2002, asked officials associated with Iraq's chemical-warfare program how long it would take to produce chemical agents and weapons. One official reportedly told Saddam that it would take six months to produce mustard gas (among the easiest such agents to manufacture); another told Uday that it would take two months to produce mustard gas and two years to produce sarin (a simple nerve agent). The questions do not suggest the presence of large stockpiles. The answers do not support a just-in-time capability."

Well I guess that he could have nukes in 5-7 years wasnt close enough for anyone to react ? What would it take, he will have them around 430 pm tomorrow?

Also why were the UN inspectors tellig them how long it would take to produce weapons? Doesnt that sound starnge to you? Also how is 2 months not a just in time mentality? In the time frame of war or world politics 2 months is a short time, also maybe that would explain why Hussein was trying to buy time.
I just dont understand how you can read this and even come close to thinking he never had them... that is where I get confused, you must be thinking without benefit of logic or maybe just copying what you read and parroting it here.

Originally posted by Overdose
CIA Director George Tenet testified before Congress in February 2001 that Iraq posed no immediate threat to the United States or to other countries in the Middle East.

........hmmmmmm?
And he quit, hmmmmmmmmm.
Is this the same man you said lied about WMD's? How do you believe a man you called a lliar when it is convienant?

"He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. " ~Colin Powell...

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
And he quit, hmmmmmmmmm.
Is this the same man you said lied about WMD's? How do you believe a man you called a lliar when it is convienant?

When did I call him a liar? quote me please.

Originally posted by Overdose
CIA Director George Tenet testified before Congress in February 2001 that Iraq posed no immediate threat to the United States or to other countries in the Middle East.

........hmmmmmm?

Ah yes the same man that said "It's a slam dunk!" to George Bush when he asked if the intel on Iraq's WMD was good and accurate before the war.


...............Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

Originally posted by Overdose
When did I call him a liar? quote me please.
I will but it was a comment you made, said he said it was a slam dunk on the WMD's in Iraq and you said that he lied or words to that effect. Either way, you didnt believe him then, but you do now....

Contradiction, yes.
I still have tons of links to support Saddam was not threat.
Go refute those.

Originally posted by Overdose
Contradiction, yes.
I still have tons of links to support Saddam was not threat.
Go refute those.
Bring 'em on....

already have.

**New Findings Of The Saddam "Threat**
-------------
"I don't think they existed," Kay told Reuters on Friday. "What everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the [1991] gulf war, and I don't think there was a large-scale production program in the '90s."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast...lfer/index.html
------------------
WASHINGTON - U.S. intelligence agencies need to explain why their research indicated Iraq (news - web sites) possessed banned weapons before the American-led invasion, says the outgoing top U.S. inspector, who now believes Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) had no such arms.

"I don't think they exist," David Kay said Sunday. "The fact that we found so far the weapons do not exist — we've got to deal with that difference and understand why."
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...id=540&ncid=716
------------------
US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld says he cannot remember hearing the claim that Iraq could launch weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3478051.stm
--------------
There was no evidence to support the claim that Iraq would have transferred WMD to al-Qaeda and much evidence to counter it

Carnegie report
Iraq probably destroyed its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in the early 1990s, the former United Nations chief weapons inspector Hans Blix has said.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3323633.stm
------------------
The CIA official in charge of the search for weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq has said no such weapons have so far been found.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3157246.stm
------------
No weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq by the group looking for them, according to a Bush administration source who has spoken to the BBC.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3137882.stm
------------
The United Nations' former chief weapons inspector Hans Blix has said Iraq probably destroyed all of its weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) more than a decade ago.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3117558.stm



**Old Findings'**
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The U.N. agency searching for evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq said Monday that so far it has not found evidence of one. http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/01/06/sproject.irq.inspections/
--------------------
The CIA told the US Senate yesterday in a statement by David Kay about the US three month search for the alleged weapons of mass destruction that "We have not yet found stocks of weapons." http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/031003/2003100320.html
-------------------
“The DIA report suggests that before the Iraq War, the U.S. intelligence community did not have hard evidence that Saddam Hussein possessed large stocks of chemical and biological warfare agents that posed an imminent threat to U.S. national security.” Jonathan Tucker former UN arms inspector
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0606-01.htm
----------------
Iraq inspectors: No weapons found
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,882074,00.html
--------------------
A report from U.N. weapons inspectors to be released today says they now believe there were no weapons of mass destruction of any significance in Iraq after 1994, according to two U.N. diplomats who have seen the document.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0302-07.htm
----------------
UNITED NATIONS -- A report from U.N. weapons inspectors to be released today says they now believe there were no weapons of mass destruction of any significance in Iraq after 1994, according to two U.N. diplomats who have seen the document.
http://www.keepmedia.com/ShowItemDe...2&oliID=213
------------------
UNITED NATIONS — A report from U.N. weapons inspectors to be released today says they now believe there were no weapons of mass destruction of any significance in Iraq after 1994, according to two U.N. diplomats who have seen the document
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/...02-un-wmd_x.htm
-------------------
Blix told the council that no weapons of mass destruction were found in the country
http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/feb/14iraq1.htm
-------------------
The United Nations' chief weapons inspector says his inspectors found no proof that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, prior to the US-led invasion of the country.
http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,,1429_W_884518,00.html
----------------
UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- U.N. inspectors found no evidence before the U.S.-led invasion in March that Iraq had reconstituted its chemical, biological or nuclear weapons programs, chief U.N. inspector Hans Blix said Thursday. http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/06/05/sprj.irq.blix.report/
A new report says United Nations inspectors found no evidence Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
http://www.woodtv.com/Global/story....mp;nav=0RceGAGn
-----------------------
As expected, the CIA's lead weapons inspector told congressional intelligence committees Thursday that his team has not yet found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/02/sprj.irq.kay/
------------------
The chief UN weapons inspector, Hans Blix, said he was starting to suspect Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction in advance of the war on Iraq, a German newspaper reported Friday."I am obviously very interested in the question of whether or not there were weapons of mass destruction, and I am beginning to suspect there possibly were none," Mr Blix told the Berlin daily Der Tagesspiegel. http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/05/1614090_comment.php
----------------------
The Pentagon's intelligence service reported last September that it had no reliable evidence that Iraq had chemical agents in weaponized form, officials said today, supporting Mr. Blix damning accusations against US and UK motives for war.
http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/06/1616976.php
----------------------------------
The CIA official in charge of the search for weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq has said no such weapons have so far been found. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3157246.stm
"I think that the vast majority of people are feeling that there is very little likelihood that they had anything, and the biggest chance is that they destroyed them in 1991," he said.
http://www.dawn.com/2003/12/24/int2.htm
-------------------------------
The former UN chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, believes that Iraq destroyed most of its weapons of mass destruction 10 years ago, according to an interview broadcast yesterday.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Stor...44511%2C00.html
-------------------------------
"We have not found at this point actual weapons," the expert told reporters after giving closed door briefings to the Senate and House of Representatives intelligence committees on the work of the Iraq Survey Group.
http://www.news.com.au/common/story...255E2%2C00.html
-------------------------
Former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter “Iraq not a threat” http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/09/08/ritter.iraq/

yawn

Originally posted by Travh20
yawn travh, ....your one of a kind man.....lmao

sorry, but a bunch of people who never wanted to find anything saying they found nothing really doesnt mean much

Originally posted by Travh20
sorry, but a bunch of people who never wanted to find anything saying they found nothing really doesnt mean much travh, we all believe something and are looking for proof. the moment you get proof, you go aaa haaaa....the moment we get proof, same thing. what makes us any different than you ? i'll tell you. when we get proof and you cant explain it, you revert to calling names like a .......well. and the problem is, we're getting more proof than you to support our position.........NO WMD'S......SADDAM NOT INVOLVED WITH ALQAIDA....HALLIBURTON RIPPING US OFF IN THE WORST OF TIMES...BUSH THE LIAR....TENET THE SCAPEGOAT.....OUR SOLDIERS DYING FOR NOOOO REAASSOONN !!! EVEN THE 911 INVESTIGATION GOING BAD FOR BUSH AND TEAM...! COLIN POWELL COMING CLEAN, STUPID ASS CONDI RICE STAYING DIRTY FOR THE CAUSE.....AND TO TOP IT ALL OFF, THE FAMILY OF THE MAN WE JUST FINISHED ARGUING ABOUT ( REAGAN ) THINKS THAT BUSH IS A DIRTY SNEAKY SNAKE. AND WHO BETTER TO KNOW, THAN THEM. THEIR FATHER WAS THE PRESIDENT AND BUSH'S FATHER VICE, SO THEY SPENT ALOT OF TIME together...........SOUNDS LIKE THE BALL is in your court !!

Originally posted by The Republican
Ah yes the same man that said "It's a slam dunk!" to George Bush when he asked if the intel on Iraq's WMD was good and accurate before the war.


...............Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm? hey !!! george tenet was only doing whjat he was told to do by george w bush....like i said, most people have a reason and then go to war......bush had a war, and needed a reason. those guys were told to come up with one. thats why i dont believe that the fbi and cia were at fault. those guys were told to do something that was gonna eventually come back to haunt them, what better way to set up a scapegoat !!! give me a break man...

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
I will but it was a comment you made, said he said it was a slam dunk on the WMD's in Iraq and you said that he lied or words to that effect. Either way, you didnt believe him then, but you do now.... no , its not that we believe him now, this just shows how dirty all hands are, but one man taking the fall......you know what, if you bring someone in on a plan to do something thats not so right, and then you tell that guy to leave his job so that you can save face.......he will eventually tell.......dumdeedumdum.....THE TRUTH !!!....george is not smart enough to know that you dont fire or make a guy quit, that you told all of your secrets to

Maybe we should blame the man who hired Tenet, most directors of CI dont last as long as he did.
Korg read this UN report, tell me where it says they dont exist........
By the way it was written by the very people OD quoted earlier.
Hmmmmmmmmmm.......


UN report on WMD's in Iraq, By Hans Blix (http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm)

Said the weapons were missing...not that he "had" them.

Nice try.

Originally posted by Overdose
Said the weapons were missing...not that he "had" them.

Nice try.

:slap:

:)

"missing"
is not what Bush said....

Originally posted by Overdose
:)

"missing"
is not what Bush said....

You are right...because once Bush says where they are Saddam cannot move them. Can he?

It's not proven they were moved, I'll wait until it is proven...

BV, better get on it.

Originally posted by Overdose
It's not proven they were moved, I'll wait until it is proven...

BV, better get on it.
Here it is AGAIN... mixed in with the proof that hussein is a threat....

Proof from B_V (http://www.allforums.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5780)

Said he was missing the weapons, that we haven’t found, that were supposedly shipped away, but that, hasn’t been proven. So maybe he wasn’t a threat?

Blix also said we didn’t have “enough evidence to attack Iraq”, so the evidence you are giving me, was not enough for the very man, that wrote the evidence, you give me.

Originally posted by Overdose
Said he was missing the weapons, that we haven’t found, that were supposedly shipped away, but that, hasn’t been proven. So maybe he wasn’t a threat?

Blix also said we didn’t have “enough evidence to attack Iraq”, so the evidence you are giving me, was not enough for the very man, that wrote the evidence, you give me.
Why would Blix be able to decide for us or anyone if we should go to war? His homeland wasnt threatened and a comment like that is beyond the scope of his job..........

Nite

Funny, you keep giving me Blix’s report…as the sole evidence for the Iraq WMD threat.

Yet, Blix said we didn’t have enough evidence to support our war. You say Blix shouldn’t be able to make a decision like that? Yet we base our decision for the Iraq war, on the reports, he created?

Originally posted by Overdose
Funny, you keep giving me Blix’s report…as the sole evidence for the Iraq WMD threat.

Yet, Blix said we didn’t have enough evidence to support our war. You say Blix shouldn’t be able to make a decision like that? Yet we base our decision for the Iraq war, on the reports, he created?

What makes you think Hans Blix didn't have his arm in the Oil for Food scandal cookie jar up to his shoulder like everyone else at the UN?

...oh, damn, I forgot, he must be involved in the oil for food scandal, and everyone who searched in Iraq, for the WMD's, must be involved in that scandal. Proving that, we cannot trust their reports of any kind. Even when David Kay and Blix all state we had no evidence to attack Iraq.

hahaha, but lord forbid, we attack the UN for the "oil for food scandal", but we just let Bush and Cheney give their oil buddies, billions of dollars, proving they are just as guilty as the UN.

OD just a point, the oil for food program was setup so that the Iraqi people would have money for meds, food and other programs, but all they received was out dated meds, spoiled foods and the only social program was lining the pocket of Hussein and others involved. Almost 10 billion dollars were stolen with help from France, Russia, China and NK most of this money went to Hussein.
SO You cant compare a corporate scandal with one that hurt 25 million people by depriving them of medicines and food.