More WMD Artillery shells found

[cosmo]

I wonder why the press isn't intrested in this news? They turn a blind eye to this, the reason we went to war, and give Al Gore front page headlines as to how there were no WMD in Iraq, and how there were no ties between the two groups. Who even cares about the truth anymore?




[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Friday, June 25, 2004 11:36 a.m. EDT
Iraq Survey Chief: More WMD Found

The head of the U.S. team conducting the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq announced on Thursday that his group has uncovered at least ten more artillery shells filled with banned chemical weapons and is finding new WMD evidence "almost every day."

"We've found ten or twelve Sarin and Mustard rounds," said Charles Duelfer, who replaced David Kay as head of the Iraq survey group earlier this year after Kay concluded that WMDs were unlikely to be found.


"We're not sure how many more are out there that we haven't found," Duelfer added, in an exclusive interview with Fox News Channel's Brit Hume. "There are still surprises out there. We're finding things and we're getting reports of hidden caches almost every day which we have to investigate."

Last month, the Pentagon confirmed that the first of the Iraq WMD findings - two shells suspected of containing deadly chemical weapons - were indeed filled with Sarin and Mustard gas.

Still, despite the mounting tally of confirmed WMD findings, administration critics continue to insist that "Bush lied" about the presence of such weapons in Iraq before the war.

Duelfer told Fox that even if the shells had degraded over time, they were still capable of killing "dozens" of people. He warned that both soldiers and civilians in Iraq should carry gas masks and have access to chem-bio suits.

Before joining the U.S. team, Duelfer was a U.N. weapons inspector and was among the few who had investigated Saddam's top secret terrorist training camp Salman Pak.

In 2001 he confirmed that elite Fedayeen troops were conducting airplane hijacking drills aboard a parked Boeing 707, dismissing claims from Iraqi officials that what he saw was "counterterrorism training."

"Of course we automatically took out the word 'counter'," Duelfer told the London Observer. "I'm surprised that people seem to be shocked that there should be terror camps in Iraq."

[Balanc3]

If the Dems allowed the truth to be told then there would be no election cause they would not have a chance. One thing about watching the television for news is that it only keeps you up to date with current events and speak nothing about history. To really know the truth you have to dig deep to find it. Look past everything on the news (election, election, election) and then you have accurate information and history that has not been re-written.

good find :Bingo:

[darkmark]

Quoting newsmax is even worse than quoting FOXNEWS...

[cosmo]

Quoting newsmax is even worse than quoting FOXNEWS...


Well maybe if CNN, The Associated Press, etc would do a piece on the find I would post it. Too bad you have to go to websites that have a right slant to get the news that contradicts their agenda.

I saw the story on another website as well. Worldnetdaily. Go figure.

It just amazes me that information like this is not mainstream news. If it were about something else, every press agency would be on it even though the story were still in the area of speculation.

[neoee]

Maybe I'm the only one but I would consider 'WMD' to be nuclear or neutron bombs, missles ect. Something that had the potential of wiping out a large city.

If the Bush administration was willing to wage a war over chemical weapons and thats part of the defination of 'WMD', then great they found what they were looking for and this only strenghtens their cause. But it seems a bit unjustified to me to spend the money and lose the lives we have over a quantity of chemicals 'capable of killing dozens" of people.'

If our intention was to go there looking for nuclear weapons or something as destructive or in a quantity equal to cause that level of destruction, and we didn't find it, I can write that off as a mistake. This however is like bringing in the swat team for someone shoplifting a candy bar.

[FM]

Maybe I'm the only one but I would consider 'WMD' to be nuclear or neutron bombs, missles ect. Something that had the potential of wiping out a large city.

If the Bush administration was willing to wage a war over chemical weapons and thats part of the defination of 'WMD', then great they found what they were looking for and this only strenghtens their cause. But it seems a bit unjustified to me to spend the money and lose the lives we have over a quantity of chemicals 'capable of killing dozens" of people.'

If our intention was to go there looking for nuclear weapons or something as destructive or in a quantity equal to cause that level of destruction, and we didn't find it, I can write that off as a mistake. This however is like bringing in the swat team for someone shoplifting a candy bar.

AMEN...seriously, Bush et al made it sound like we were going to find large quanitites of bombs capable of taking out an entire country...and all that was found have been scrap metal...

I wonder sometimes...

[delirious]

I wonder why the press isn't intrested in this news? They turn a blind eye to this, the reason we went to war, and give Al Gore front page headlines as to how there were no WMD in Iraq, and how there were no ties between the two groups. Who even cares about the truth anymore?

Explain to us all how 10 artillery shells are "weapons of mass destruction."

That term doesn't mean mere ordinance and a few shells left over from the Iran-Iraq war, but the ability to launch them and inflict "mass destruction". I'm not sure why any war-defenders would want to bring up the WMD issue now since it's been so utterly discredited. Colin Powell admitted to using fabricated evidence at the U.N which was possibly provided by Iran, of all nations.

How the United States should react if Iraq acquired WMD. "The first line of defense...should be a clear and classical statement of deterrence-if they do acquire WMD, their weapons will be unusable because any attempt to use them will bring national obliteration."
Condoleeza Rice
US National Security Advisor
2/1/2000

Here she admits Iraq's WMDs aren't really of great concern. Maybe she "changed her opinion" after Bush decided that he'd invade even if Saddam and his henchmen left the country.

For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.
Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense, 5/28/2003

Here he admits it was just a "bureaucratic" reason given for the invasion.

Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons. We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have
George W. Bush, 10/5/2002

So far, none of those "facilities" have been found.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.
George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, 1/28/2003

500 tons?


Let's talk about the nuclear proposition for a minute. We know that based on intelligence, that [Saddam] has been very, very good at hiding these kinds of efforts. He's had years to get good at it and we know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.
Dick Cheney, Meet The Press, 3/16/2003

No Iraqi nukes found yet

It was a surprise to me then - it remains a surprise to me now - that we have not uncovered weapons, as you say, in some of the forward dispersal sites. Believe me, it's not for lack of trying. We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they're simply not there.
Lt. Gen. James Conway

"It turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and, in some cases, deliberately misleading," Powell said on NBC's "Meet the Press" program. "And for that I am disappointed, and I regret it."

[brakada]

And does anyone remember how the Bush administration claimed the UN inspectors had enough time to uncover the weapons. Now the US have "total" control of Iraq and can trully access every building and piece of land in Iraq, but they found only a couple of bomb shells. :roll: I think even the inspectors could have done that in over a year.

[cosmo]

How are ten artillery shells of sarin 'weapons of mass destruction'?

One drop of sarin will kill you. Smuggle one gallon into a new york subway, there is no telling how many people you could kill. Let alone shut down every subway here in America. You could put any given amount of sarin into the water system. It's been proven that Saddam agreed to train terrorists in chemical weapons capability.

It never was about wiping out a whole city.. You're over-exaggerating.

You people are trying to minimize the situation, when Iraq was clearly a freelance sponsor of hatred against Israel and the west.

[neoee]

How are ten artillery shells of sarin 'weapons of mass destruction'?

One drop of sarin will kill you. Smuggle one gallon into a new york subway, there is no telling how many people you could kill. Let alone shut down every subway here in America. You could put any given amount of sarin into the water system. It's been proven that Saddam agreed to train terrorists in chemical weapons capability.

It never was about wiping out a whole city.. You're over-exaggerating.

You people are trying to minimize the situation, when Iraq was clearly a freelance sponsor of hatred against Israel and the west.

I'm not in any way trying to minimize this finding but due to the nature of chemical weapons I would suspect they would be relatively easy to produce, in almost any location and probably in a short period of time. This is not the case with nuclear weapons. The materials required to produce such a device are much more controlled and you aren't going to be able to produce it as quickly or easily. I simply want to point out that a clandestine lab could probably sarin, so why are we waging a war over it in the quantities that we have seen?

Now for my disclaimer: I'm no expert in chemical weapons. Maybe sarin takes years to make and the chemicals required to compose it are only available on Mars. My comment is based on pure speculation. I will however say that since sarin was first produced in Germany in 1938 as a pesticide, this is likely not the case.

[davetlv]

Explain to us all how 10 artillery shells are "weapons of mass destruction."

That term doesn't mean mere ordinance and a few shells left over from the Iran-Iraq war, but the ability to launch them and inflict "mass destruction". I'm not sure why any war-defenders would want to bring up the WMD issue now since it's been so utterly discredited. Colin Powell admitted to using fabricated evidence at the U.N which was possibly provided by Iran, of all nations.

I might be wrong here but lets take the definition of WMD as exactly that; weapons that cause mass destruction. Simple. No further explainations needed. I'm sure the 5000+ Kurds from Halabja who were butchered by Sadaam did not make a difference between chemical/nerve agents and a nuclear capability.

Such agents can be fired from either scud or kassam rockets, both of which Iraq has/had. The fact that they might not be able to reach the US or Europe is irrelevant.

[mylexicon]

I'm not in any way trying to minimize this finding but due to the nature of chemical weapons I would suspect they would be relatively easy to produce, in almost any location and probably in a short period of time.

:Hmmm: You just stated the exact reason we thought U.N. inspections were
futile and military recourse was necessary. And i don't think i've ever heard anyone
put it better. :lol: WMD can be made in a large basement. Which is exactly
what we think happened. Thats why we keep finding tens of thousands of
documents at every scientist's house. It appears as though the entire program
was decentralized then destroyed, hidden, or transported when we attacked.
Thats why we waited only a few months before attacking......unfortunately it
may have been too long. :NotMe:

Explain to us all how 10 artillery shells are "weapons of mass destruction."

If you saw the size of the Iraqi gun we found pointed at Israel during Gulf
War I, you might have a little more respect for Iraqi artillery ambitions.

The modernized variant of the cannon is reportedly able to fire the biological, chemical and even nuclear shells and hit the targets in Kuwait, Bahrain, Turkey and Israel. These are the countries, which are supposed to be included in the new anti-terrorist coalition. They also fear, lest they should become a target for Saddam-s super-weapon.

taken from: don't know how good the source is but it echoes most of the stuff i've heard about he gun.
[Only registered and activated users can see links]

I do know that the gun was designed by Gerald Bull, the Canadian physicist.
I'm pretty sure he was the one who also experimented with shooting satellites
into space using super guns; a very cheap alternative to the way we do it now.

yep gerald bull was the one doing the super space cannon research, too bad
he fucked with Moussad, he probably would have been successful.
[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]
Ah finally a pic. This is the Baby Babylon Cannon, notice how small the trucks
are in the background.

[delirious]

Explain to us all how 10 artillery shells are "weapons of mass destruction."

If you saw the size of the Iraqi gun we found pointed at Israel during Gulf
War I, you might have a little more respect for Iraqi artillery ambitions.


But how many of those guns have been found in Gulf War II?

A weapon isn't mere artilery but something to fire it and cause "mass destruction". How do 10 old artilery shells cause mass destruction?

And, finally, do you think the UN would've okayed the invasion for a few shells left over from the Iran-Iraq war?

"He [Saddam Hussein] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."
Secretary of State Colin Powell during a visit to Cairo, Egypt, February 24, 2001

[delirious]

:Hmmm: You just stated the exact reason we thought U.N. inspections were
futile and military recourse was necessary. And i don't think i've ever heard anyone
put it better. :lol: WMD can be made in a large basement. Which is exactly
what we think happened. Thats why we keep finding tens of thousands of
documents at every scientist's house. It appears as though the entire program
was decentralized then destroyed, hidden, or transported when we attacked.
Thats why we waited only a few months before attacking......unfortunately it
may have been too long. :NotMe:


Hmmm... that contradicts what your defence minister was saying at the time.

"We know where they are. They?re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
Rumsfeld

[delirious]

[quote=delirious]Explain to us all how 10 artillery shells are "weapons of mass destruction."

If you saw the size of the Iraqi gun we found pointed at Israel during Gulf
War I, you might have a little more respect for Iraqi artillery ambitions.


Iraqi artillery ambitions? Ha ha ha! We're not talking about "ambitions" but the facts on the ground. Try again.

How do 10 old artilery shells cause mass destruction?

The United States military definition of WMDs is fairly narrowly drawn:

In ARMS-CONTROL usage, WEAPONS that are capable of a high order of destruction or of being used in such a manner as to destroy large numbers of people. They can be nuclear, chemical, biological or radiological
Facts on File Dictionary of Military Science

According to your logic is a machine gun also a WMD since it has the ability to kill thousands more people than a few, old artilery shells?

And, finally, do you think the UN would've okayed the invasion for a few shells left over from the Iran-Iraq war when Bush had made it clear that he was talking about "25,000 liters of anthrax ... 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin ... materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent ... upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents ... several mobile biological weapons labs ... thousands of Iraqi security personnel?"

He [Saddam Hussein] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.
Secretary of State Colin Powell during a visit to Cairo, Egypt, February 24, 2001

[dohturdima]

He "did not develop" :mrgreen: But they found the sarin shells. What you meant to say is "did not develop to its full potential". To North Corea with this one, mon ami. :Smiley:

[delirious]

He "did not develop" :mrgreen: But they found the sarin shells. What you meant to say is "did not develop to its full potential". To North Corea with this one, mon ami. :Smiley:

No, read what he said again:
He [Saddam Hussein] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.
Secretary of State Colin Powell during a visit to Cairo, Egypt, February 24, 2001

Maybe a few artillery shells from the Iran-Iraq war aren't a "significant capability" since they can't inflict mass destruction.

[brakada]

If you saw the size of the Iraqi gun we found pointed at Israel during Gulf
War I, you might have a little more respect for Iraqi artillery ambitions.


And how many shots exactly did the gun fire during the gulf war?


If you read the article, the article also says:

Gerald Bull-s son said in the interview to the Canadian newspaper that he was not really sure, if Iraq could really create such a weapon. Michael Bull said that a country with such a hard economic state as Iraq was not likely to do something of that kind. He added, the cannons were originally meant for delivering the satellites to the orbit v that was what his father was intended to do. Such a cannon could not be a mobile weapon, and it would be very easy to destroy it with several blasts or bombs. Moreover, Michael Bull said the cannons would not be ready to shoot at once - a couple of test shots would be necessary to perform, and they will be quickly registered by the foreign satellites. He also added it takes a day or even more to load a cannon. However, Michael Bull did not know, what Saddam Hussein-s new cannon looked like: either it was really the new super-weapon, or just a imagery weapon of the psychological war that Hussein was waging against the West.


Do you really think it was that big of a threat. Iraq had the cannons "for ages" and noone really minded... If they could seriously threaten anyone, I'm sure it would have been a lot different...

[phishfood]

i agree with everything delirious said.
iraq was our 'friend' during the iraq-iran war since iran was more friend with the russians and all. we gave them lots of different things, including gas. just the reason you dont hear about it more.

also you dont hear about how we trained and equiped the afgans durning their conflict with the russians.

there was another story about gas shells a few months ago. also got little press for just that reason. they probably had a usa barcode on the side ;). there has been no huge wmd factories or mobile labs that powell had such a nice diagram of.

oh and fear the huge cannon.

[delirious]

iraq was our 'friend' during the iraq-iran war since iran was more friend with the russians and all. we gave them lots of different things, including gas. just the reason you dont hear about it more.

During the Iran-Iraq war, Iraq received the lion's share of American support because at the time Iran was regarded as the greater threat to U.S. interests. According to a 1994 Senate report, private American suppliers, licensed by the U.S. Department of Commerce, exported a witch's brew of biological and chemical materials to Iraq from 1985 through1989 . Among the biological materials, which often produce slow, agonizing death, were:

* Bacillus Anthracis, cause of anthrax.

* Clostridium Botulinum, a source of botulinum toxin.

* Histoplasma Capsulatam, cause of a disease attacking lungs, brain, spinal cord, and heart.

* Brucella Melitensis, a bacteria that can damage major organs.

* Clostridium Perfringens, a highly toxic bacteria causing systemic illness.

* Clostridium tetani, a highly toxigenic substance.

Also on the list: Escherichia coli (E. coli), genetic materials, human and bacterial DNA, and dozens of other pathogenic biological agents. "These biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction," the Senate report stated. "It was later learned that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the United Nations inspectors found and removed from the Iraqi biological warfare program."

The report noted further that U.S. exports to Iraq included the precursors to chemical-warfare agents, plans for chemical and biological warfare production facilities, and chemical-warhead filling equipment.

The exports continued to at least November28 ,1989 , despite evidence that Iraq was engaging in chemical and biological warfare against Iranians and Kurds since as early as1984 .

[Jenks]

QUOTES to remember;

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has .. chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

SO NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES?

[delirious]

SO NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES?

Also remember how Bush pulled out the UN weapons inspectors saying that he had seen proof of the WMDs and in that process violated the UN charter and international law.

That's was Bush's decision which you can't blame the Democrats for.

[Jenks]

UN, lmao. Those inspectors couldn't find the crack in my ass.

Still tho, funny how you blatantly disregarded the entire post about democrats flip flopping as usual, and went for the one bush slant.

:RockOn: That's politics for ya.

[evangelion]

UN, lmao. Those inspectors couldn't find the crack in my ass.

Still tho, funny how you blatantly disregarded the entire post about democrats flip flopping as usual, and went for the one bush slant.

:RockOn: That's politics for ya.

No, that's liberals for ya. Say what is popular at the time. What would Kerry stand to gain from supporting the war now. His whole line is to do and say whatever is the opposite of Bush. So what if he said the EXACT OPPOSITE just a few years earlier.

Sometimes I actually hope Kerry gets elected just so when this country and the Iraq situation goes to total shit I can sit back and listen to all the liberals backtrack and say they never supported him or that his ideas would never have worked or whatever. And then I smack myself back to reality.

[Jenks]

^^^lol, i'd like to see it happen in theory, but i wouldn't want to see the world with Kerry running it in reality.

[mylexicon]

Gerald Bull-s son said in the interview to the Canadian newspaper that he was not really sure, if Iraq could really create such a weapon. Michael Bull said that a country with such a hard economic state as Iraq was not likely to do something of that kind. He added, the cannons were originally meant for delivering the satellites to the orbit v that was what his father was intended to do. Such a cannon could not be a mobile weapon, and it would be very easy to destroy it with several blasts or bombs. Moreover, Michael Bull said the cannons would not be ready to shoot at once - a couple of test shots would be necessary to perform, and they will be quickly registered by the foreign satellites. He also added it takes a day or even more to load a cannon. However, Michael Bull did not know, what Saddam Hussein-s new cannon looked like: either it was really the new super-weapon, or just a imagery weapon of the psychological war that Hussein was waging against the West.

Gerald Bull was eliminated by Moussad for helping Iraq build the cannon.
In GWI Iraq believed it had sufficient Air Force capability to defend such
a weapon against Israel and up until they saw mr. B-2 they probably
felt they could have kept America away too.

"We know where they are. They?re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
Rumsfeld
This was according to the satellit images that at the time were classified
but now have been released through the recent series of U.N. inspector
hearings and reports that said there was evidence of uninspected weapons facilities.
Turns out nothing was there when we arrived, sucks, but unless someone
was doctoring U.N. inspection documents under the watchful eye of Blix,
something was there at some point.

"He [Saddam Hussein] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."
Secretary of State Colin Powell during a visit to Cairo, Egypt, February 24, 2001

Arabs have always wanted sanctions lifted from Iraq and have always
wanted the U.N. to leave the Middle East. Colin Powell goes over pre 911
and says. Mr. Egyptian president the sanctions are working and we are
keeping your people safe, you should continue to support U.N. presence
in the Middle East. Goodbye. Makes a lot more sense when you put it in
context. Not to mention we had not inspected Iraq at that time for
about two years when inspectors left Iraq in December 1998. Of course
Colin Powell was sent to Egypt to blow smoke up their ass.

[brakada]

QUOTES to remember;

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998


What is wrong with that? A perfectly normal understandable quote. Nothing is said about what means should be used... Occupying Iraq? I think not...


"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998


Again, nothing is said to what amount the force should be used, and if Sadam rejected peace.


"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998


That is true, but still nothing is said about invading Iraq. It is only said, that Iraq is a potential (OK, the greatest) threat and that actions in the region matter for American interests, but nothing was happening in Iraq when it was invaded.


"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998


Presumption. And an incompetent advisor...


"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998


Need I say more? Air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites, not occupying the country.


"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998


Duh. Who didn't know that? So is half of the world and you don't go invading them.


"Hussein has .. chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999


Duh again.

As for other statements. It is true that Iraq posed a potential threat in the region. It was clear that it once possessed WMDs and means to produce them (after all, they had supplies from the USA :lol: ), but it was very unclear to what extent Sadam has developped those weapons. I am almost certain, that the Clinton administration would have changed their minds after the work of the UN inspectors and they would probably allow them to finish their works. Even if they would use military force it would probably be a couple of air and missile strikes, like they used to. IMO during the Clinton administration going to war and invading Iraq was not an option. Certainly not without the UN support (at least I think he appreciated it a bit more than the current administration does). As for the quotes during the Bush administration most of them are to blamed on Bush (I know, how typical of liberals). Wasn't he the one who started convincing American people that Iraq is a current threat, that Iraq definitely has a huge arsenal of WMDs and he can reach America for sure. He claimed those things a lot more seriously. All other senators just made fools out of themselves for trusting him. But if I am honest, most of the blame should be on the shoulder of your intelligence agencies. After all their information was practically worthless and with all the funding they receive... :? someone should definitely be held responsible for misleading the entire world about Iraq WMDs. But noone took responsibility.

Everyone who claimed that Iraq was the greatest threat to US security and that war was inevitable, is IMHO an idiot... At least everyone who claimed that after the UN expectors left. Whether a liberal or a conservative... I don't really care.


SO NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES?

Bush played a great part in convincing other people about the neccessity of the Iraq campaign, so he deserves most of the blame. But if I am honest most of the congress should be blamed for it, including democrats. :D

[brakada]

Sometimes I actually hope Kerry gets elected

Well, vote for him and we'll see, won't we? :WinkNSmi:

[evangelion]

Sometimes I actually hope Kerry gets elected

Well, vote for him and we'll see, won't we? :WinkNSmi:

The chances of that happening are about as likely as Kerry sticking to something he says longer than one speech.

[FM]

No, that's liberals for ya. Say what is popular at the time. What would Kerry stand to gain from supporting the war now. His whole line is to do and say whatever is the opposite of Bush. So what if he said the EXACT OPPOSITE just a few years earlier.

Sometimes I actually hope Kerry gets elected just so when this country and the Iraq situation goes to total shit I can sit back and listen to all the liberals backtrack and say they never supported him or that his ideas would never have worked or whatever. And then I smack myself back to reality.

That'd be a great fantasy world..:CrackUp: and I'd like to see that...but then again, I'd hate to see this country REALLY hit rock bottom...things are bad enough as is in most cases :(

[evangelion]

...things are bad enough as is in most cases :(

All the more reason to reelect someone who at very least stands for something, and is seeing through what he started.

[brakada]

The chances of that happening are about as likely as Kerry sticking to something he says longer than one speech.

There you go:


I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002."



"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998


He even sticked to it for 5 years. :lol: Now vote for him. :wink:

Politicians are all the same, changing their positions is what they do and get paid for. :? It's just how well you convince the people, you really "changed". :lol:

[evangelion]

The chances of that happening are about as likely as Kerry sticking to something he says longer than one speech.

There you go:


I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002."



"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998


He even sticked to it for 5 years. :lol: Now vote for him. :wink:

Politicians are all the same, changing their positions is what they do and get paid for. :? It's just how well you convince the people, you really "changed". :lol:

Yeah and what does he say now? :roll:

He tries to make is sound like he never said any of that. Or at least twists it to make himself not look like as big of a hypocrite.

[brakada]

Yeah and what does he say now? :roll:

He tries to make is sound like he never said any of that. Or at least twists it to make himself not look like as big of a hypocrite.

Well, as I said, that's what politics is all about. IMHO, an honest person could never make a good career in politics. Bush should have done that, too. He should have fired a few people (esp. from intelligence) and admit that things could have been done better and blame it on the others. Bush also seems to "forget" quite a lot of what he says, hint: "The war in Iraq has ended." And how many Americans have died since?

[delirious]

UN, lmao. Those inspectors couldn't find the crack in my ass.

Still tho, funny how you blatantly disregarded the entire post about democrats flip flopping as usual, and went for the one bush slant.

:RockOn: That's politics for ya.

I've told everyone already: I'm non-partisan; I hate both parties equally. I don't care what the Democrats said... everyone knows this is Bush's war.

[evangelion]

UN, lmao. Those inspectors couldn't find the crack in my ass.

Still tho, funny how you blatantly disregarded the entire post about democrats flip flopping as usual, and went for the one bush slant.

:RockOn: That's politics for ya.

I've told everyone already: I'm non-partisan; I hate both parties equally. I don't care what the Democrats said... everyone knows this is Bush's war.

So let's see some liberal criticism then. As I recall there was been exactly 0% from you so far. Like I said: Say one thing, do another. You are a classic closet liberal. COME OUT!!!!

[neur0t0xin64]

I wonder why the press isn't intrested in this news? They turn a blind eye to this, the reason we went to war, and give Al Gore front page headlines as to how there were no WMD in Iraq, and how there were no ties between the two groups. Who even cares about the truth anymore?

yeah big surprise that the US media won't report something pro-US. I hate the fucking media!!!!
Maybe they should leave Brad Pitt and Madonna (oops I mean Esther :ROFLMAO:) alone and pay attention!

[neur0t0xin64]

Quoting newsmax is even worse than quoting FOXNEWS...
Look at me I'm the worst of all for quoting you!

[Balanc3]

You guys are missin the importance of this find. We have found more old missiles that were supposedly destroyed during some of the first U.N. inspections in the early nineties. Instead the were relocated and hidden from the inspectors while the inspectors sat on their thumbs and said no WMDs found here. Its always been a goose chase, and this is proof that Saddam ducked the inspections and still had WMDs even after they were supposedly destroyed. Now these missiles are littering the middle-east. Tell me this is not an emminent threat to the U.S. and its allies. How bout this "what if" scenario. What if one of those missiles made it into Greece for the Olympic games. :HolyShit: Thus why NATO is preparing to send a navy fleet, spy planes, and WMD units into Greece. So screw your hijack over the "news max source" this information has made its way over the wire and is being published by papers worldwide. This is real so stop being so freeking [Only registered and activated users can see links] skeptical, unless you want another 9/11 or whatever.

[mylexicon]

He even sticked to it for 5 years.

And it took him 5 minutes to change his mind. :lol: Even in this world where we
exalt pragmatism over blind idealism, you'd be hard pressed to find a person
who was enlightened in 5 minutes. Especially considering he is a vietnam vet
and he knew what invasion would mean long before he saw pictures on CNN.

He is a hack. A president must sometimes make decisions about national
security that will make him an unpopular man......it is a responsiblity of the
office. You are given enormous amounts of intelligence information and
you are required to act according to the knowledge only you are privy to. Clinton
and, it could be argued that Bush, both failed before 9/11. Bush will not fail
again, but i'm certain that ball-less flip flopping Kerry will. He represents the
pervading insolence that ruled America pre-911, and he must be kept from
office.