WMD in Iraq

Jerffy, oh my goodness, you are a veritable genuis. You’d better fax your results to the White House immediately!!!

Those supposed experts conducting the investigation surely never considered any of your deductions!!!

Makkun,

I wanted to respond to your last paragraph.

“Which deductions can we take from this? Well, the obvious one is that intelligence on Iraq was not good - to bad it was part of the argument for war.”

Well stated and I agree.

“The other one might be - and I would leave that open for discussion - that the UN sanctions (in spite of the OFF misuse) actually did work.”

As it stated in the Duefler report, prior to OFF, the Iraqi economy was on the way to collapse. After 1995/96, the OFF breathed new finances and life into the regime. It goes on to state that key areas of WMD research/devlopment received money. That includes upping finances of said scientists.

I would go as far as saying that the sanctions were working until OFF and the joke it became. Further, the lack of sustained political will from this and other countries to effectively contain Saddam, led to these sanctions becoming a joke.

Further you can read the line in the report that as of “1999, Saddam was in striking distance of getting sanctions removed.”

Many of us fear that that is exactly what would have happened had George and friends had not internvened.

The report points unambigously to what would have happened had this happend.

For you, Makkun, (because I love you), think about Germany in the 30’s!!! Flaunting Versailles. Training pilots in Russia, building the Wermacht in secrecy. Finally, testing the will of the West by overt parades of military might.

JeffR

huh.

so makkun, you’re saying saddam was like some outta shape guy who’s has got half empty containers of every supp ever made in his basement alongside a stack of muscle mags and a few collector’s edition asian pinks, but never had a plan or a diet so, despite his “training for ten years”, and shopping the net and hard gyms for “gear” to fulfill his intention on “gettin hyooge”, he’s only really made gains in the single forearm dept ?

[quote]swivel wrote:
huh.

so makkun, you’re saying saddam was like some outta shape guy who’s has got half empty containers of every supp ever made in his basement alongside a stack of muscle mags and a few collector’s edition asian pinks, but never had a plan or a diet so, despite his “training for ten years”, and shopping the net and hard gyms for “gear” to fulfill his intention on “gettin hyooge”, he’s only really made gains in the single forearm dept ?[/quote]

Swivel, interesting post!!! I think you are saying that all these components and deceptions are very suspicious.

If so, I agree.

JeffR

“The report points unambigously to what would have happened had this happend.”

Terrible sentence structure!!!

Sorry.

The report points unambigously to the consequences of the lifting of economic sanctions.

JeffR

Jerffy… Vroom, you’re too damn hilarious.

Jerffy, you are coming dangerously close to singlehandedly destroying years of administration propaganda and right wing talking points.

Hush up or you’ll be arguing that sanctions do indeed work. You’ll be an outcast among the neocon elite.

Anyhow, its a damned good thing they decided to invade, those sanctions were pretty likely to be lifted spontaneously because they weren’t working. Phew, close call indeed!!!

!!!

One thing for sure, we won’t ever be embarrassed by NOT finding WMD’s ever again…

US May Allow Nuke Strikes over WMD
The Japan Times
03 May 2005

Proposal would reverse 10-year policy.

Washington - The U.S. military is considering allowing regional combatant commanders to request presidential approval for pre-emptive nuclear strikes against possible attacks with weapons of mass destruction on the United States or its allies, according to a draft nuclear operations paper.

The March 15 paper, drafted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is titled “Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations,” providing “guidelines for the joint employment of forces in nuclear operations . . . for the employment of U.S. nuclear forces, command and control relationships, and weapons effect considerations.”

“There are numerous nonstate organizations (terrorist, criminal) and about 30 nations with WMD programs, including many regional states,” the paper says in recommending that commanders in the Pacific and other theaters be given an option of pre-emptive strikes against “rogue” states and terrorists and “request presidential approval for use of nuclear weapons” under set conditions.

The paper identifies nuclear, biological and chemical weapons as requiring pre-emptive strikes to prevent their use. (according to Guliani this would include Canada I suppose)
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/050305J.shtml

“Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations” - pdf

They were there, and now they’re gone… trust us. Hey Canada, is that anthrax I smell?

“Thus inwardly armed with confidence in God and the unshakable stupidity of the voting citizenry, the politicians can begin the fight for the ‘remaking’ of the Reich as they call it.”
-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Still waiting for someone to read the report and comment.

In addition, I suggest you read the Duefler report.

Very interesting reading.

Again, did the three people who have responded catch the part where I asked nicely for you to keep your mouth shut if you can’t be bothered to read the report?

Thanks.

JeffR[/quote]

A bit I like is:

‘Post-OIF looting destroyed or dispersed important and easily collectable material and forensic evidence concerning Iraq’s WMD program. As the report covers in detail, significant elements of this looting were carried out in a systematic and deliberate manner, with the clear aim of concealing pre-OIF activities of Saddam’s regime’

So because the US troops didnt reign in looting potentially deadly elements are now in hands even more dangerous than Saddam’s? Like Terrorists? Nice! Here’s an extract from a report I did myself a month or two back (because I don’t just trawl the neo-con websites looking for inflamatory material, I acutally do the research myself!):

'…no unconventional weapons, delivery systems for those weapons or immediate intention of building or obtaining said weapons was found . Former American weapons inspector David Kay stated in January 2005:

You cannot believe how hard it is to motivate people in the field who know that all they are doing is going through busy work motions because they themselves know there are no weapons there? I faced that over a year ago with a team that essentially knew that we were right when we said they were no weapons.

Controversy lingers over whether the US and British governments leant on security services to provide sensationalised claims and it is unlikely we will ever know exactly which way data was running along the chain of command. It does seem likely, from the dramatic switch of stories between 2000 and 2002 some ?leaning? on intelligence officials happened, but the simple fact that all the assertions of Saddam Hussein?s threat were wrong is justification for stating a lack of legitimacy in America and Britain?s (the ?Coalition of the Willing?) invasion of Iraq. Even during the weapons inspections before the Coalition invasion the credentials of some weapons inspectors was questioned, as chief inspector Hans Blix said the previous team:

?lost its legitimacy by being too closely associated with intelligence [meaning the intelligence community] and with Western states

The fundamental questions of legitimacy regarding the intelligence community in the run up to war are one of the most worrying parts of the whole Iraq War debacle. What not only brings legitimacy into question but also the sanity of the Coalition is the fact that during widespread looting after the war was declared over, nuclear power plants were left unguarded and hence were subsequently raided by the gangs .

It is difficult to make an inventory of what was there and what is now missing as much documentation was also destroyed or taken . Saddam Hussein did not however posses the ability to turn the fuel of these power stations into nuclear weapons, but there is obviously now the risk this material may have fallen into the hands of someone who can do this. The chances of this material falling into the wrong hands before the Coalition invasion were few. No link has ever been made between Saddam Hussein and any terrorist organisations; what is more the likelihood of cooperation between Hussein?s government and Islamic fundamentalists was low for one of many simple reasons: Hussein tried to make Iraq a secular state- obviously not enticing to religious fanatics. What has in fact happened is Iraq has been made into a safe haven and breading ground for terrorists…’

I like the pictures of lab equipmrnt in the article too, they’re great! I mean jesus, Hussein couldn’t even put a conventional army together, let alone a biological/nuclear arsenal!

well , i’m kinda sayin’ why should ronnie coleman(usofa) commit the majority of his resources to defend himself from a guy(i-rock)
who’s only got some gear and a great forearm ?

'cause he likes asian pink($$$) ?

John,

Thanks for taking the time to read the link.

I appreciate that.

JeffR

[quote]JeffR wrote:
John,

Thanks for taking the time to read the link.

I appreciate that.

JeffR[/quote]

I do believe this is my first “LOL”, but goodness, does it fit. Ok, now that we have all read this informative essay, what was the point? That burned computers during a bunch of explosions, DURING A WAR with nothing in them are evidence of…what?

May Johnnie Cochran rest in peace, but if the glove don’t fit, you must acquit. I must admit though, it was great just to repeat that there were no weapons of mass destruction.

POX wrote:

“I do believe this is my first “LOL”, but goodness, does it fit. Ok, now that we have all read this informative essay, what was the point? That burned computers during a bunch of explosions, DURING A WAR with nothing in them are evidence of…what?”

That is the only thing you got out of the discussion?

Sad.

“May Johnnie Cochran rest in peace,”

What a revealing comment.

OJ innocent POX?

“but if the glove don’t fit, you must acquit. I must admit though, it was great just to repeat that there were no weapons of mass destruction.”

No large stockpiles. Pretty hard to argue that there weren’t undeclared “goodies” found.

I’m not one bit surprised that you are unwilling to discuss this.

JeffR

Instructions for Jerffy:

  1. Close eyes real tight.

  2. Say LA-LA-LA-LA.

  3. Click heals together three times.

  4. Wish for WMD’s in Iraq.

[quote]JeffR wrote:
I’m not one bit surprised that you are unwilling to discuss this.

JeffR
[/quote]

Unwilling to discuss it? I read your article, quoted directly from it, and discussed it with you. Why lie to yourself?

Hey Moriarity,

What do you think about the articles/report cited and the subsequent discussion?

I’d like your input.

JeffR

[quote]vroom wrote:
Instructions for Jerffy:

  1. Close eyes real tight.

  2. Say LA-LA-LA-LA.

  3. Click heals together three times.

  4. Wish for WMD’s in Iraq.[/quote]

Have you read the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy with the space ship’s hyper-improbability drive? (which for those who havent read it works by bending reality into the most improbable things to power the ship) Anyway, yeah, the ship creates a blue whale and a bowl of flowers high above the surface of a planet by going into warp. The Bush admin needs that kind of event for WMD to turn up in Iraq.

John G.,

Congratulations to Tony Blair!!!

God Bless him for standing by his guns.

I remember your friends predicting his demise.

I’m glad the American/English alliance is as strong as ever.

It’s important to the coalition that he, W., and Blair won their re-elections.

I wish Spain hadn’t embarrassed themselves.

JeffR

It’s important that Howard, Blair, and Bush won re-election.

Damn, twice in two days!!!

JeffR

News flash (for the ill informed) - looks like things could get interesting…

British Memo Indicates Bush Made Intelligence Fit Iraq Policy
Knight Ridder
May 6, 2005

WASHINGTON – A highly classified British memo, leaked in the midst of Britain’s just-concluded election campaign, indicates that President Bush decided to overthrow Iraqi President Saddam Hussein by summer 2002 and was determined to ensure that U.S. intelligence data supported his policy.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0506-01.htm

Eighty-eight members of Congress call on Bush for answers on secret Iraq plan
In a letter, Conyers and other members say they are disappointed the mainstream media has not touched the revelations. (WHAT!? not the “liberal” media)

“Unfortunately, the mainstream media in the United States was too busy with wall-to-wall coverage of a “runaway bride” to cover a bombshell report out of the British newspapers,” Conyers writes.

“The London Times reports that the British government and the United States government had secretly agreed to attack Iraq in 2002, before authorization was sought for such an attack in Congress, and had discussed creating pretextual justifications for doing so.”
http://www.rawstory.com/aexternal/conyers_iraq_letter_502

Let’s see what does that remind me of… oh yeah, the Nuremburg Trials:

Nazi Conspiracy & Aggression, Volume I, Chapter VII - On August 22, 1939 Hitler again addressed members of the High Command, telling them when the start of military operations would be ordered. He disclosed that for propaganda purposes he would provocate a good reason. "It will make no difference he announced, “whether this reason will sound convincing or not. After all, the victor will not be asked whether he talked the truth or not. We have to proceed brutally. The stronger is always right.” (just before invading Poland - “don’t forget Poland”)