# Following Iraq's bioweapons trail



## Hunter368 (Apr 13, 2007)

By Robert Novak
Sun-Times Columnist
September 26/02

Sen. Robert Byrd, a master at hectoring executive branch witnesses, asked Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld a provocative question last week: Did the United States help Saddam Hussein produce weapons of biological warfare? Rumsfeld brushed off the Senate's 84-year-old president pro tem like a Pentagon reporter. But a paper trail indicates Rumsfeld should have answered yes.

An eight-year-old Senate report confirms that disease- producing and poisonous materials were exported, under U.S. government license, to Iraq from 1985 to 1988 during the Iran-Iraq war. Furthermore, the report adds, the American- exported materials were identical to microorganisms destroyed by United Nations inspectors after the Gulf War. The shipments were approved despite allegations that Saddam used biological weapons against Kurdish rebels and (according to the current official U.S. position) initiated war with Iran.

This record is no argument for or against waging war against the Iraqi regime, but current U.S. officials are not eager to reconstruct the mostly secret relationship between the two countries. While biological warfare exports were approved by the U.S. government, the first President George Bush signed a policy directive proposing ''normal'' relations with Saddam in the interest of Middle East stability. Looking at a little U.S.-Iraqi history might be useful on the eve of a fateful military undertaking.

At a Senate Armed Services hearing last Thursday, Byrd tried to disinter that history. ''Did the United States help Iraq to acquire the building blocks of biological weapons during the Iran-Iraq war?'' he asked Rumsfeld. ''Certainly not to my knowledge,'' Rumsfeld replied. When Byrd persisted by reading a current Newsweek article reporting these exports, Rumsfeld said, ''I have never heard anything like what you've read, I have no knowledge of it whatsoever, and I doubt it.''

That suggests Rumsfeld also has not read the sole surviving copy of a May 25, 1994, Senate Banking Committee report. In 1985 (five years after the Iraq-Iran war started) and succeeding years, said the report, ''pathogenic (meaning ''disease producing''), toxigenic (meaning ''poisonous'') and other biological research materials were exported to Iraq, pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce.'' It added: ''These exported biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction.''

The report then details 70 shipments (including anthrax bacillus) from the United States to Iraqi government agencies over three years, concluding, ''It was later learned that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the United Nations inspectors found and recovered from the Iraqi biological warfare program.''

With Baghdad having survived combat against Iran's revolutionary regime with U.S. help, President George H.W. Bush signed National Security Directive 26 on Oct. 2, 1989. Classified ''secret'' but recently declassified, it said: ''Normal relations between the United States and Iraq would serve our longer-term interests and promote stability in both the Gulf and the Middle East. The United States government should propose economic and political incentives for Iraq to moderate its behavior and to increase our influence with Iraq.''

Bush the elder, who said recently that he ''hates'' Saddam, saw no reason then to oust the Iraqi dictator. On the contrary, the government's approval of exporting microorganisms to Iraq coincided with the Bush administration's decision to save Saddam from defeat by the Iranian mullahs.

The Newsweek article (by Christopher Dickey and Evan Thomas) that so interested Byrd reported on Rumsfeld's visit to Baghdad on Dec. 20, 1983, that launched U.S. support for Saddam against Iran. Answering Byrd's questions, Rumsfeld said he did meet with Saddam and Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz, but was dismissive about assisting ''as a private citizen . . . only for a period of months.'' Rumsfeld contended he was then interested in curbing terrorism in Lebanon.

Quite a different account was given in a sworn court statement by Howard Teicher on Jan. 31, 1995. Teicher, a National Security Council aide who accompanied Rumsfeld to Baghdad, said Rumsfeld relayed Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir's offer to help Iraq in its war. ''Aziz refused even to accept the Israeli's letter to [Saddam] Hussein offering assistance,'' said Teicher, ''because Aziz told us that he would be executed on the spot.''

Following Iraq's bioweapons trail


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 13, 2007)

I found this webpage and found this article which is interesting. Thought I would share it with you all and see what you all think.


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 13, 2007)

Report: U.S. supplied the kinds of germs Iraq later used for biological weapons

WASHINGTON (AP) — Iraq's bioweapons program that President Bush wants to eradicate got its start with help from Uncle Sam two decades ago, according to government records getting new scrutiny in light of the discussion of war against Iraq.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention sent samples directly to several Iraqi sites that U.N. weapons inspectors determined were part of Saddam Hussein's biological weapons program, CDC and congressional records from the early 1990s show. Iraq had ordered the samples, claiming it needed them for legitimate medical research. (Related story: A look at U.S. shipments of pathogens to Iraq)

The CDC and a biological sample company, the American Type Culture Collection, sent strains of all the germs Iraq used to make weapons, including anthrax, the bacteria that make botulinum toxin and the germs that cause gas gangrene, the records show. Iraq also got samples of other deadly pathogens, including the West Nile virus. 

USATODAY.com - Report: U.S. supplied the kinds of germs Iraq later used for biological weapons


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 13, 2007)

I seen these articles before - no secret we gave Iraq all kinds of WMD goodies in the good ole cold war years figuring he'd waste the Iranians and any other stray commie that might come his way - Instead he gassed the Kurds and some of his own people and turned into a real shithead as we all know. Its ashamed we gave this jerkoff those weapons but it was a different world then and I guess those geniuses in the Pentagon and CIA would of never guess he'd invade Kuwait...


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 13, 2007)

And I will state this again, Iraq *HAD* WMD's in 1990 *AND* 2003...


----------



## mkloby (Apr 13, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> And I will state this again, Iraq *HAD* WMD's in 1990 *AND* 2003...



Some just won't believe that, no matter what...


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 13, 2007)

I know, thats whats so sad about the whole thing.... Whats admitted to the "press" aint always the whole truth... There are things I still cant talk about, but its true...


----------



## Njaco (Apr 13, 2007)

> lesofprimus - And I will state this again, Iraq HAD WMD's in 1990 AND 2003...



shipped through Syria and France.

The Command Post - Iraq - The Facts Stand Alone

ParaPundit: Where Iraq Purchased Weapons 1973-2002

Still callin those things French Fries?


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 13, 2007)

NO, and u know whats sad???

I use a certain pen in my line of work, exclusively... U may know it... Its the 4 colored Bic pen with the small colored slides at the top of it...

Its the greatest thing in my line of work, and its uses are utilized countless times a day....

The bad thing is that its made in France.... It irks me every now and then...


----------



## Njaco (Apr 15, 2007)

I know and the worst part if I refused to use anything not American made I'd only have a tampoon and watermelon peeler!

Again the media steers this country.I love it now when they state Iraq never held terriorist. Well.. if I remember one of the first captures was the mastermind of the Aqule Lauro (sorry, bad spelling) the incident where the American in a wheelchair was killed I believe.

Hogwash!!!


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 16, 2007)

Njaco said:


> shipped through Syria and France.
> 
> The Command Post - Iraq - The Facts Stand Alone
> 
> ...



Nice charts


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 16, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> I know, thats whats so sad about the whole thing.... Whats admitted to the "press" aint always the whole truth... There are things I still cant talk about, but its true...




Agreed, buts its hard to make people believe this when all they believe is what is released in the papers and news.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 16, 2007)

We found French Made Hardware built in 2002 where we were camped out at. That is the only reason they did not support the war. So that we wouldn ot find what they were selling them and also because it stopped some of there cash flow.


----------



## Civettone (Apr 16, 2007)

- Iraq didn't have WMDs since the late 90s. 
- French companies may have smuggled some stuff in. This is not the same as saying French government was behind it. Corruption can be found everywhere.
- France and almost the entire world was against the war because it was illegitimate, as it was without a UNSC authorisation. 

Kris


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 16, 2007)

Civettone said:


> - Iraq didn't have WMDs since the late 90s.
> Kris



That is bullshit. We found WMD's. But then again you are 100 percent correct because well I was there and you only read the media reports.

Hmmm I guess based off what you are saying Arty shells with Mustard Gas are not Chemical Weapons among other things that we found.

Do you really think that everything is leaked to the Press. The Press only knows about 10 percent of what is going on. The Press does not find out things because it puts soldiers more at risk when they know things. 

Oh and French made bombs are not sold and shipped to Iraq without government knowledge. These bombs were shipped and built during the UN sanctions emplaced on Iraq. Therefore they were illegally sold....

France should have been punished by the UN for this but as we all know (well that is people that have common sense and see what is happening in the world) know that the UN is a crock of **** and useless.


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 16, 2007)

Civettone said:


> - Iraq didn't have WMDs since the late 90s.
> - French companies may have smuggled some stuff in. This is not the same as saying French government was behind it. Corruption can be found everywhere.
> - France and almost the entire world was against the war because it was illegitimate, as it was without a UNSC authorisation.
> 
> Kris



I would say that there is a few Vets here that would not agree with you Kris about Iraq not having WMD.

UN authorisation? When "has" UN authorized an invasion? LOL

UN is useless, spinless.......without balls. UN sucks

UN is / was a good thought, when it was made, but in it's current state makes it almost totally useless. Thats why no one listens to it or cares about it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 16, 2007)

Hunter368 said:


> I would say that there is a few Vets here that would not agree with you Kris about Iraq not having WMD.



Does not matter. Seeing things with your own eyes is not worth a damn when it does not agree with his agenda. That is why I will not participate in this thread as well. 

It is not worth the headaches or the muscles in my fingers used to type.


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 16, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Does not matter. Seeing things with your own eyes is not worth a damn when it does not agree with his agenda. That is why I will not participate in this thread as well.
> 
> It is not worth the headaches or the muscles in my fingers used to type.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 16, 2007)

Civettone said:


> - Iraq didn't have WMDs since the late 90s.
> 
> 
> Kris



FOXNews.com - Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq - U.S. Senate
The Sound of Silence: Iraq's WMDs Found - Joe Mariani - MensNewsDaily.com™
WMDs Found in Iraq - HUMAN EVENTS
WorldNetDaily: Hundreds of WMDs discovered in Iraq


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 16, 2007)

Cough cough cough!!!!

Joe is the man!



Not to mention it really does not matter whether there was WMD or not in Iraq......it was believed that there was a very strong chance there was. Saddam refused to allow full excess to UN inspectors.....leading the world to believe there very likely was WMD or why not let the inspectators in.

Saddam has to hold a great deal of responsibleity for the invasion, you can't just blame USA for being wrong Kris.


----------



## Erich (Apr 16, 2007)

the question arises and is always open for debate and Les has been right on the monies along with Chris, what consitutes a WMD ? ........ not necesssairy something nucleur. 

we already knew in the 70's and early 80's what the little shrimp of a plo leader wanted and begged for from the big countries with Saudia financial backing. funny he was sent materials for construction but did not have the means to put an arsenal together as his entourage was made up of neen-ka poops. Will tell you Saddam and the enemy Persians were watching closely and waiting to see if arafatty could pop a big one on Israel so they could give a go and try


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 16, 2007)

Hunter368 said:


> Not to mention it really does not matter whether there was WMD or not in Iraq......it was believed that there was a very strong chance there was. Saddam refused to allow full excess to UN inspectors.....leading the world to believe there very likely was WMD or why not let the inspectators in.
> 
> Saddam has to hold a great deal of responsibleity for the invasion, you can't just blame USA for being wrong Kris.


That's the whole point - Hussein, just to save face allowed his country to be invaded - this ultimetly led to his demise - all becuase of his own stupidity.

The same could be of the Taliban - they had their nice cozy f#cked-up Islamic shithole - all they had to do in turn over Bin Laden...

BTW Kris I work on a military installation and met DOZENS of US Army and Air Force personnel who have seen WMDs in Iraq. I don't care what your reported friend says, there were WMDs found. Not to the extent we were led to believe, but they were there and these folks (who range from Army Privates to Air Force Lt Cols) who told me this have no reason to lie.


----------



## Erich (Apr 16, 2007)

Fly I have a cousin whose son is over in Iraq as a ranger and a hunter of the items in question, besides on another personal note interviewed two of my ex-BSA eagle scouts that both served in the army first tour, one has gone back, they both have pics of wmd's that were buried in iraq.

more and more evidence is pouring in while the media ignores nor cares


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 16, 2007)

Agree....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 16, 2007)

The media does not report on these events because it goes against there agenda.


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 16, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The media does not report on these events because it goes against there agenda.



I will play devils advocate before Kris does. Why is it not on their agenda to report the truth?

Not all media outlets are leftwing.


----------



## mkloby (Apr 16, 2007)

Civettone - I beg you to consider this. Many personnel can't discuss many very important things that happened in Iraq. The press is also not privy to this information. It isn't reported. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. There are some instances of media reporting NBC weapons, but it is for the most part severely under-reported.

You can debate the legitimacy of the Iraq war - that's a valid argument. Many Americans would agree with you. Here's something to consider about the UN. The United Nations is an organization comprised of many different nation-states, which all have divergent interests. If the UN takes a course of action that a member state believes is very detrimental to it's own future - why is it illegitimate to act in defiance of that organization?

Many Americans do not give a damn about the UN. It's comprised of states, all attempting to to what's best for their own self-interests, which is how the world has always worked. Except now, the UN has this stamp of legitimacy placed upon it, as if it has some sort of actual power in being. Americans won't give up one bit of their sovereignty to a multi-national body that does not care one bit about American interests. Furthermore, the UN can be used as a weapon against the US by other member states that oppose US interests. The French didn't oppose our war in Iraq on the grounds that the UN didn't give it their stamp of approval, they opposed it because our actions in Iraq were detrimental to their national interests. No nation-state is altruistic. None at all.
The whole concept of the UN, as it applies to int'l relations, is flawed. It disregards reality. That defunct organization is likely to go the way of the League anyway.


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 16, 2007)

mkloby,

I like your post first off. I do have a question for you, we both agree UN as it stands sucks. But do we (world) not need some organization to try and keep peace? Without it, it would lead to "might = right".

Then respectfully I am sure you could understand most of the worlds unhappyness with USA ruling the roast without anyone to answer to.

Even I who am a Canadian and who likes the USA would be not thrilled about that idea. Should there not always be "some" check stops in place vs aggressive nations or nations who hold vastly more power than others.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 16, 2007)

mkloby said:


> Civettone - I beg you to consider this. Many personnel can't discuss many very important things that happened in Iraq. The press is also not privy to this information. It isn't reported. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. There are some instances of media reporting NBC weapons, but it is for the most part severely under-reported.
> 
> You can debate the legitimacy of the Iraq war - that's a valid argument. Many Americans would agree with you. Here's something to consider about the UN. The United Nations is an organization comprised of many different nation-states, which all have divergent interests. If the UN takes a course of action that a member state believes is very detrimental to it's own future - why is it illegitimate to act in defiance of that organization?
> 
> ...


IT DOESN'T GET MUCH CLEARER THAN THAT!


----------



## Erich (Apr 16, 2007)

ah but Hunter who will come if the UN does not stand up and proceed ? well it will be one unified world in time under a monster in time but for now it appears the US/England and whomever have to be the police force in the world which is utter nonsense

anway dig the martial arts link you provided as well

mk good thought processes and actually if we have to understand too that Kris does get media sources from other than our own. I've watched Deutsche Welle over and over again though I do not always agree with what I see and hear from them it does provide other details not often seen. I still do not agree with the liberal bias but that is ok

let's face it gents/ladies we are going to hear what the media wants us to hear and in many cases there is privelged information not given to them even after pressing the questions, the same ones home time after time, they just will not be answered ........

wish I had about 1500 of these guys from old to go seek and destroy through Baghdad at night







the Warrior lives !!


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 16, 2007)

Thanks Erich about the Martial Arts link. Martial Arts has been a huge interest of mine for years.


But again I will say this Erich. A world ruled or policed by UK/USA is a world that I think alot of people around the world would not agree with. I am sure even as a American you can understand that (meaning no disrespect).

There has to be "some" international group as the "watch dog"......but the hard part is getting one that is effective, if you can ever get it effective.


----------



## Erich (Apr 16, 2007)

I fully well know what you are saying .......... one of the reasons I would like the USA out of everyones affairs even as far back as the 1970's. Sometimes it is always best to have countries work things out even if they destroy one another in the process.............yes that sounds lame but


----------



## mkloby (Apr 16, 2007)

Hunter368 said:


> mkloby,
> 
> I like your post first off. I do have a question for you, we both agree UN as it stands sucks. But do we (world) not need some organization to try and keep peace? Without it, it would lead to "might = right".
> 
> ...



This organization you speak of is manipulated by member states to support national agendas. That's not exactly multi-national. The only time it acts as a true mutli-national organization is when many member states all have convergent interests.

The USA is the most powerful nation, yet we are not omnipotent. The same constraints that have always affected int'l relations still affect the US, and still would with or without the UN. Many of the nation-states that oppose the US through the channels of the UN are playing a new version of an OLD, OLD record - *BALANCE OF POWER.* If the US is bent on a course of action that it perceives to be in her interest, if the forces arrayed (not necessarily military forces) against the US are compelling enough to make US leaders believe that pursuit of that policy will no longer be in their best interests, the US will change their policy. This holds true with or w/o the UN.

This same theory will still be employed if the UN closed up shop tomorrow. Consider this - what type of ability would the UN have to conduct any operations if the US withdrew, and also withdrew all funding?

The UN is a good forum for facilitating int'l diplomacy. However, the idea that it is the source of legitimacy in resolving int'l conflicts that reach a diplomatic impasse is naive. Member states generally line up on the side that supports their own national interests. Please explain to me how this is different from how the world has functioned for thousands of years?


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 16, 2007)

mkloby said:


> This organization you speak of is manipulated by member states to support national agendas. That's not exactly multi-national. The only time it acts as a true mutli-national organization is when many member states all have convergent interests.
> 
> The USA is the most powerful nation, yet we are not omnipotent. The same constraints that have always affected int'l relations still affect the US, and still would with or without the UN. Many of the nation-states that oppose the US through the channels of the UN are playing a new version of an OLD, OLD record - *BALANCE OF POWER.* If the US is bent on a course of action that it perceives to be in her interest, if the forces arrayed (not necessarily military forces) against the US are compelling enough to make US leaders believe that pursuit of that policy will no longer be in their best interests, the US will change their policy. This holds true with or w/o the UN.
> 
> ...




Perhaps we small nations just feel alittle better with even a "token paper tiger" in our corner if push came to shove.

Yes I am playing, like I said before, devils advocate to a degree. But "what if" USA decided to "take over" Canada (just b/c I am Canadian), Canada could not stop her.

Even if we wanted to all we could do is sniper, traps, etc etc the USA. Perhaps I am just pissing in the wind but it would feel alittle better if I knew "UN" was backing us and telling USA to get out.

I know I know UN still could not do much vs USA but still......paper tiger is better then nothing.

Understand my point (as useless as it might be, its still a point)


----------



## Erich (Apr 16, 2007)

yes but Hunter here is the issue of concern, do you feel safer with the UN in it's present form ? Will or can it even get any better with a strong and level headed leadership base ? ......... I know that is what you are asking .......

I'm so stinking tainted with my former past with these folk that nothing of good comes to my mind


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 16, 2007)

Erich said:


> yes but Hunter here is the issue of concern, do you feel safer with the UN in it's present form ? Will or can it even get any better with a strong and level headed leadership base ? ......... I know that is what you are asking .......
> 
> I'm so stinking tainted with my former past with these folk that nothing of good comes to my mind



I do feel safer to a degree with UN in place. Will it ever get better? who knows....I doubt it but we can dream.

I love my country, like you love yours, without check stops in place what is stopping one country from steam rolling us?

If USA invaded us, I know a "big if", we would be dead in the water. Would UN stop USA? No she can't but it still makes us feel safer. It might be hard for someone living in the most powerful naton on the planet to understand but thats how I feel.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 16, 2007)

Hunter368 said:


> I will play devils advocate before Kris does. Why is it not on their agenda to report the truth?
> 
> Not all media outlets are leftwing.



Bad news is good news...


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 16, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Bad news is good news...



Bad news = good news = $$$$$


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 16, 2007)

Exactly, and unfortunatly lots of people dont take the media for what it is worth and with a grain of salt.


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 16, 2007)

Civettone said:


> - Iraq didn't have WMDs since the late 90s.


So I suppose the 2 SEALs and 3 Special Forces fellas that Ive known for the last 15 years, and have seen WMDs in 2003 and 2004, are liars huh???


----------



## Civettone (Apr 17, 2007)

Sorry for the late reply. I hardly ever visit the off-topic forum and forgot about it.

I haven't read all the posts but what exactly are this WMDs which have been found? Didn't GWB himself say that they didn't find them? 

As to the UN, it's very very clear. US signed the UN treaty stating that a country may only attack another country out of self defence and when the UNSC gives its consent. This didn't happen and as such the war is illegitemate/illegal. 

You can expect the UN to follow the US in whatever it wants, that's against the principle of the UN. The UN which were a mainly American project. I'm sorry that it backfired but you cannot have it both ways. Either you follow the rules, or you drop out the UN so you can do whatever you please. 

And Erich, please note that in the Islam discussion I have not used media sources to back up my claims although it would be easy to do. I'm playing by the rules some of you set up.
Kris


----------



## Civettone (Apr 17, 2007)

Ok, I read the rest.



> This same theory will still be employed if the UN closed up shop tomorrow. Consider this - what type of ability would the UN have to conduct any operations if the US withdrew, and also withdrew all funding?


As the US is behind in paying its bills for the amount of a billion and a half US dollars, and as the EU is paying more than the US, I don't think the UN will manage economically without the US. 




> The UN is a good forum for facilitating int'l diplomacy. However, the idea that it is the source of legitimacy in resolving int'l conflicts that reach a diplomatic impasse is naive.


Are you saying that the UN hasn't resolved int'l conflicts? 



> Member states generally line up on the side that supports their own national interests.


Of course. Just like the US...


I've also taken a look at those WMDs. It's mainly about that 155mm shell with degraded sarin. I also find it strange that I have to look at Fox media reports to read about this while I'm not allowed to use any media... 
So here's some official stuff:
On September 30, 2004, the U.S. Iraq Survey Group Final Report concluded that "The ISG has not found evidence that Saddam possessed WMD stocks in 2003, but [there is] the possibility that some weapons existed in Iraq, although not of a militarily significant capability."
Now this is an AMERICAN report from a Survey Group organized by the CIA and the Pentagon... So if even THEY don't believe what you guys are saying, why should I? 
Iraq Survey Group Final Report

Kris


----------



## mkloby (Apr 17, 2007)

Civettone said:


> As the US is behind in paying its bills for the amount of a billion and a half US dollars, and as the EU is paying more than the US, I don't think the UN will manage economically without the US.



The US had accounted for about 20 percent of the UN budget. There is debate whether the US should pay dues to the UN. Believe it or not - there's a good chance the US will become hostile towards the US. Look at how impotent the organization is now, and then imagine it without the US. As hunter said - paper tiger.



Civettone said:


> Are you saying that the UN hasn't resolved int'l conflicts?


You really need to read my posts better. I said int'l conflicts that reach *impasse* - it's powerless to take any course of action. Take the pathetic UN stance on the Iranian issue. 



Civettone said:


> Of course. Just like the US...


All nations follow their own self-interests. Case closed.




Civettone said:


> I've also taken a look at those WMDs. It's mainly about that 155mm shell with degraded sarin. I also find it strange that I have to look at Fox media reports to read about this while I'm not allowed to use any media...
> So here's some official stuff:
> On September 30, 2004, the U.S. Iraq Survey Group Final Report concluded that "The ISG has not found evidence that Saddam possessed WMD stocks in 2003, but [there is] the possibility that some weapons existed in Iraq, although not of a militarily significant capability."
> Now this is an AMERICAN report from a Survey Group organized by the CIA and the Pentagon... So if even THEY don't believe what you guys are saying, why should I?
> ...



You don't have to believe what we are saying. These guys are not relying up MEDIA, or a report whether from a gov't agency or other. I will say again, *NOT ALL INFORMATION IS RLEASED TO THE PUBLIC. PLAIN AND SIMPLE.*

I'm sure you think that this is a convenient method to avoid showing proof of NBC.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 17, 2007)

I guess the Mustard Gas that we found is not a WMD in Civettones book.

Civettone do you really think that the Press knows and finds out everything. Again there is so much more happening and going on that you have no clue about...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 17, 2007)

Civettone said:


> I haven't read all the posts but what exactly are this WMDs which have been found? Didn't GWB himself say that they didn't find them?










He did say that because the WMDs found were not to the quantity advertised...

BTW - Skud missiles were on the list - the first day of the war Iraq launched 3 or 4 of them.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 17, 2007)

Civettone said:


> As the US is behind in paying its bills for the amount of a billion and a half US dollars, and as the EU is paying more than the US, I don't think the UN will manage economically without the US.



The EU is not a sovereign nation in it self, it is an economic union of several countries - apples and oranges.


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 17, 2007)

Joe,

The skuds did not have chemicals in them did they?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 17, 2007)

Good post there FBJ. Yes it is true that the stuff that has been found so far is outdated and probably would not have worked however there is evidence that better quality stuff is in Syria and Iran now.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 17, 2007)

Hunter368 said:


> Joe,
> 
> The skuds did not have chemicals in them did they?



No


----------



## Civettone (Apr 17, 2007)

> Civettone do you really think that the Press knows and finds out everything.


Why do you keep bringing that up? Where did I mention the press? I mentioned the Iraqi Survey Group. If they say no WMDs were found, why would I doubt them? A professional 1,000 men team organized by the CIA and Pentagon who have said from the beginning that there were WMDs now say there weren't any. 



> The EU is not a sovereign nation in it self, it is an economic union of several countries - apples and oranges.


The EU is aa sovereign political body with legal right of its own. The EEU was an economic union, perhaps you're confusing the EU with that?

Kris


----------



## Erich (Apr 17, 2007)

whoa wait a minute did you not hear repeatedly on many of the news stations broadcasted even from the mid-east that the EU admins were restricted from seeing - looking into certain areas and that restriction was placed because it was not suitable for them to enter nor see until cleaned up. we have intel reprorts of at least 3 spots.

wmds have been found Kris and I can tell you know more than that from a personal standpoint. It has already been mentioned that even the Pres and his cabinet were not given the full reports and turht into the matter and only by political pressure did he hae to come on TV media and say we have found none. iraq and Iran/Syria are vast areas of expanmase, lets be real the media is not everywhere in that area, and more troops US and otheriwse are finding cute little toys that are been found and slowly and with respect opened.

as for the thing in Israel when they wer bombarded by Skuds did you know that at least 2 destroyed had chemicals on board and only by shear resolve and the US influence that Israel did not attack in return with a massive thundering air-strike ~ i am revealing too much .......


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 17, 2007)

All I can say is this. I have seen things with my own eyes. I guess to some here I must have been blind or decieved by my own eyes.

The truth will come out eventually and the nay sayers and non believers will be sitting on there ass's feeling like ass's.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 17, 2007)

Hunter368 said:


> Joe,
> 
> The skuds did not have chemicals in them did they?


No they were conventional, but they were on the WMD list.


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 17, 2007)

Erich said:


> whoa wait a minute did you not hear repeatedly on many of the news stations broadcasted even from the mid-east that the EU admins were restricted from seeing - looking into certain areas and that restriction was placed because it was not suitable for them to enter nor see until cleaned up. we have intel reprorts of at least 3 spots.
> 
> wmds have been found Kris and I can tell you know more than that from a personal standpoint. It has already been mentioned that even the Pres and his cabinet were not given the full reports and turht into the matter and only by political pressure did he hae to come on TV media and say we have found none. iraq and Iran/Syria are vast areas of expanmase, lets be real the media is not everywhere in that area, and more troops US and otheriwse are finding cute little toys that are been found and slowly and with respect opened.
> 
> as for the thing in Israel when they wer bombarded by Skuds did you know that at least 2 destroyed had chemicals on board and only by shear resolve and the US influence that Israel did not attack in return with a massive thundering air-strike ~ i am revealing too much .......



Can you talk about those two scuds anymore Erich? Details? Links? anything?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 17, 2007)

Civettone said:


> The EU is aa sovereign political body with legal right of its own. The EEU was an economic union, perhaps you're confusing the EU with that?
> 
> Kris



Is the EU as a whole a UN member? No. Each member had an independent vote. If that was a case then all members of the EU should surrender their sovereignty, have one UN vote and then your argument would be valid. You can't have it both ways.


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 17, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> No they were conventional, but they were on the WMD list.



Sorry Joe,

I am confused (sometimes that is easy LOL), why would conventianal Skuds be on the list for WMD?

Sorry if I am asking you a very simple question.

I am just 10 years past evolutionally walking on my knuckes.


----------



## Erich (Apr 17, 2007)

which skuds ? the ones found in Iraq ? just to let you know mine was at an earlier time and from that it was quite apparent what Saddam was acquiring and trying to work out with his scinece techs advised by some pretty interesting Soviet folk.

Adler is on the monies, but I feel it will never come out as the truth and we will see the effects in the future especially if we are forced to pull out with the winners of the 08 elections

there IS SO MUCH behind the scenes information withheld here on this or any other forums for good reason ............... it is called "FRICKING SECURITY" 
so enough of this self proclaimed denial BS from anyone that there were no wmd's or other biologicals.

Hunter I know because i was .......... skuds are an excellent short range carrier with several different warhead adaptions. i'll say no more except let your mind wander. you can see why we have been watching the little snip from north Korea and his ever bogus rocket firings towards Hawaii. the gift zwerg has the mobility and if he gets his puddgy little hands on something which he so wants to do then the world will reap the whirlwind


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 17, 2007)

Hunter368 said:


> Sorry Joe,
> 
> I am confused (sometimes that is easy LOL), why would conventianal Skuds be on the list for WMD?
> 
> ...



Hey no problem...

The SKUDS were put on the WMD list because of the problems they caused during GW1 and their ability to be armed with chemical or biological weapons. If Iraq had 1 or 100 they still had a weapon on the WMD list....


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 17, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Hey no problem...
> 
> The SKUDS were put on the WMD list because of the problems they caused during GW1 and their ability to be armed with chemical or biological weapons. If Iraq had 1 or 100 they still had a weapon on the WMD list....



I see. Thanks


----------



## Erich (Apr 17, 2007)

do not foget what was found even through TV media.............Iraq/French and Soviet chemical suits in abandoned and partially buried in the sands bunkers


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 17, 2007)

Erich said:


> do not foget what was found even through TV media.............Iraq/French and Soviet chemical suits in abandoned and partially buried in the sands bunkers


Imagine that!


----------



## Erich (Apr 17, 2007)

welllllllllllllll gollllllllllllllllllllllley Fly there is 1 piece of junk out of 50

you've proven my point friend, now lets get into Syria and open the bag of worms even more


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 17, 2007)

Yeap I was there at the site in Northern Iraq. I have pictures of it somewhere, as well as used anthropene injectors and other evidence of WMD's.

But hey Erich my own eyes were decieving me. It cant be true because someone else says it was not.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 17, 2007)

And FBJ I think that Foxbat there was the one found at our camp. There are things burried all over Iraq including Chemical Weapons which I have allready said some of which has been found. There is much more out there and it will take decades to find them all.


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 17, 2007)

And what about these!

https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraqi_mobile_plants/index.html


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 17, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> And what about these!
> 
> https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraqi_mobile_plants/index.html



Good link Matt!


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 17, 2007)

I remember when that was actually announced at the beginning of the war. The ones they found were thoroughly scrubbed and they surmised that they were whisked away to Syria and Iran. They thoroughly scrubbed them because they new that the US would fly UAVs with sniffers over Iraq to search them out. It was in the news for exactly one day. And then magically they no longer existed. No WMD program links. Saddam was innocent.


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 17, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> I remember when that was actually announced at the beginning of the war. The ones they found were thoroughly scrubbed and they surmised that they were whisked away to Syria and Iran. They thoroughly scrubbed them because they new that the US would fly UAVs with sniffers over Iraq to search them out. It was in the news for exactly one day. And then magically they no longer existed. No WMD program links. Saddam was innocent.



Funny how that happens.


----------



## Erich (Apr 17, 2007)

also remember the video shot and posted so many times on the media of the overhead of trucks moving ? out and the units noncoms asking the Babylonian hierarchy where they were to go with the so called ?, because they were expecting the EU silly inspector board to show up as the EU had given the unit plenty of warning beforehand, and as a side note isn't it interesting that the EU seemed to give notification well beforehand where they were wanting to go and what they wanted to see.............. ? > do we see a set up here

it doesn't matter as the crap was all wheeled off and we covered this slop years ago on the board and now buried in archival matter


----------



## Civettone (Apr 17, 2007)

> It has already been mentioned that even the Pres and his cabinet were not given the full reports


That doesn't make sense. They grabbed every little indication of WMDs to start this war, and now you're telling me that after the war the president wasn't told there were WMDs? 
Oh c'mon, the CIA and the Pentagon were behind the Iraq Survey Group. They would have sold their mothers to find WMDs and show the world they were right all along. 




> Is the EU as a whole a UN member?


That's not the point FlyboyJ, you said the EU was just an economical union on my claim that the EU countries donate more money than the US. Sure, they donate it seperately but the fact remains.




> Yeap I was there at the site in Northern Iraq. I have pictures of it somewhere, as well as used anthropene injectors and other evidence of WMD's.
> But hey Erich my own eyes were decieving me. It cant be true because someone else says it was not.


So now you're also a scientist and expert on WMDs? Personally, I couldn't be sure something is a WMD if you put it right on my desk. And then I start couphing up blood and my eyes start popping out... 




> also remember the video shot and posted so many times on the media of the overhead of trucks moving ? out and the units noncoms asking the Babylonian hierarchy where they were to go with the so called ?, because they were expecting the EU silly inspector board to show up as the EU had given the unit plenty of warning beforehand, and as a side note isn't it interesting that the EU seemed to give notification well beforehand where they were wanting to go and what they wanted to see.............. ? > do we see a set up here


Erich, I'm sorry, but I don't understand a word of what you're saying. Well, not quite, the words are ok but I don't understand what you're saying. noncoms, eu, inspector board??

Kris


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 17, 2007)

Lee Harvey Oswald didn't shoot Kennedy. I didn't see him personally do it. Thus can't be true.

Civ, your a broken record. Pfttt-pftt. Pfttt-pftt. Pfttt-pftt.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 17, 2007)

Civettone said:


> That's not the point FlyboyJ, you said the EU was just an economical union on my claim that the EU countries donate more money than the US. Sure, they donate it seperately but the fact remains.


Collectively they do - but they don't vote as the EU, they vote as individual nations, that's my point.


----------



## Erich (Apr 17, 2007)

to the above it makes perfect sense if you ready it for what it is worth..........Kris read between the lines as we say, I cannot go deeper nor more clear with specifics

the same applied when we were in Nam and tricky dicky did not know all of what was happening especially on the secret end when we were involved in what we now call stealth operations

to the last item you quote the same applies there was at least 3 different video's channelled chopped, applied for public video amusement, Collin Powell was on hand rather nervously talking via new media from all over the world as to what was happening though he was trying deliberately to cover up the find. It still was a poor show but it was clear enough that it showed movement of weapons systems in stages and I mean broken down into crates and hauled away by trucks with bunker personell trying to receive further orders on where to take their cargo. Panic was in the background and actually the Iraq translators were not translating the script correctly anyway ............... ok enough nomore on this ...............you better keep a more open mind Kris and any others if you doubt what was there and what is still buried


----------



## Civettone (Apr 17, 2007)

Matt and Erich, I'm asking you specific questions. I would appreciate it if you would answer them as I take the effort of replying to your comments. It's not that they are that difficult: 
- Matt, can you tell me where you sharia quote comes from?
- Erich, can you rephrase your comment, as I find it difficult to understand?




> Collectively they do - but they don't vote as the EU, they vote as individual nations, that's my point.


And you're absolutely right. 
But like I said, it was about paying for the UN. So instead of saying the "EU pays more than the US" I should have said "the EU countries collectively pay more than the US". 

Kris


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 17, 2007)

Civettone said:


> And you're absolutely right.
> But like I said, it was about paying for the UN. So instead of saying the "EU pays more than the US" I should have said "the EU countries collectively pay more than the US".
> 
> Kris




Agree - but that still has little or nothing to do with UN clout if they all vote independantly


----------



## Civettone (Apr 17, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Agree - but that still has little or nothing to do with UN clout if they all vote independantly


True.
The current situation is not manageable. Although the principle of having about 190 members having their say is a wonderful expression of democracy, it's really too difficult. Not only should the general assembly be modified so it would resemble more of a international parliament, the security council should be reorganized and the veto should have to go. I have often thought about this though it's damn difficult. Not only will one or another member refuse to give up their seat and will another refuse to give up their veto, or both, the other problem is how to have the entire world represented in this security council. And this works directly against the principle of every country equal to eachother. 
For instance, I was thinking of having the following members: US, EU, non-EU Europe, Russia, China, Japan/S-Korea, SE-Asia, India, Commonwealth, Arabia, Black Africa, Latin America, Others but it is not perfectly balanced and especially the "others" are difficult to fill in: you'll have countries like Iran, Israel, Mongolia, Pakistan, which don't belong anywhere.
But I'm drifting off...

Kris


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 17, 2007)

Civettone said:


> True.
> The current situation is not manageable. Although the principle of having about 190 members having their say is a wonderful expression of democracy, it's really too difficult. Not only should the general assembly be modified so it would resemble more of a international parliament, the security council should be reorganized and the veto should have to go. I have often thought about this though it's damn difficult. Not only will one or another member refuse to give up their seat and will another refuse to give up their veto, or both, the other problem is how to have the entire world represented in this security council. And this works directly against the principle of every country equal to eachother.
> For instance, I was thinking of having the following members: US, EU, non-EU Europe, Russia, China, Japan/S-Korea, SE-Asia, India, Commonwealth, Arabia, Black Africa, Latin America, Others but it is not perfectly balanced and especially the "others" are difficult to fill in: you'll have countries like Iran, Israel, Mongolia, Pakistan, which don't belong anywhere.
> But I'm drifting off...
> ...



Actually I agree....


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 17, 2007)

i would hate to be bunched up with the commonwealth a better one for us might be the Carribean, Central America, and Canada


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 17, 2007)

Civettone said:


> True.
> The current situation is not manageable. Although the principle of having about 190 members having their say is a wonderful expression of democracy, it's really too difficult. Not only should the general assembly be modified so it would resemble more of a international parliament, the security council should be reorganized and the veto should have to go. I have often thought about this though it's damn difficult. Not only will one or another member refuse to give up their seat and will another refuse to give up their veto, or both, the other problem is how to have the entire world represented in this security council. And this works directly against the principle of every country equal to eachother.
> For instance, I was thinking of having the following members: US, EU, non-EU Europe, Russia, China, Japan/S-Korea, SE-Asia, India, Commonwealth, Arabia, Black Africa, Latin America, Others but it is not perfectly balanced and especially the "others" are difficult to fill in: you'll have countries like Iran, Israel, Mongolia, Pakistan, which don't belong anywhere.
> But I'm drifting off...
> ...



100 % agree also, I have thought about it alot also. It really is near impossible to make work.....but is fun to try and come up with a workable plan.

I would not want to be grouped in with "Commonwealth" either. What do Canadians have in common with UK or any other Commonwealth? I don't really care about UK anymore than any other euro country.

Canada has more in common with USA, Mexico then UK.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 17, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> i would hate to be bunched up with the commonwealth a better one for us might be the Carribean, Central America, and Canada


So you vacation where its warm - I got you covered....8)


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 17, 2007)

Next year i'll have to reaquire a passport to go anywhere south


----------



## mkloby (Apr 17, 2007)

Hasn't anybody thought that the idea of each member state in the UN having an equal voice is absurd? Why should a state with a substantially smaller population have as much voice as say... China??? That's not exactly democratic. In fact, that's one of the reasons that I am not fond of the US Senate.

I disagree with any type of multi-national organization imbued with int'l powers. It requires that a nation give up some of its sovereignty to that organization. Luckily, many Americans agree with that sentiment.


----------



## Civettone (Apr 18, 2007)

> Hasn't anybody thought that the idea of each member state in the UN having an equal voice is absurd? Why should a state with a substantially smaller population have as much voice as say... China??? That's not exactly democratic.


Yes, it's far from ideal. The principle behind it is noble, giving small countries a bit more to say. A small country like Liechtenstein has a much to say as China. But going for the other method is also troublesome: based on population China would have 3 times more votes than the US, and 100 times more than Belgium. So what do we use as a guide? Perhaps GDP or size of the economy? But then the rich countries get even more power...

Some kind of a consensus should be found. But then very few will be pleased with the proposal. A similar story is going on in the EU now that Holland and France have rejected the European Constitution after some fools gave the people the opportunity to reject it. 

Kris


----------



## Njaco (Apr 18, 2007)

Throwing my 2 cents in. The question of WMDs is a game played by the media. The US military has a list of what qualifies as a WMD. But the media knows that without an A bomb the general public won't get excited. Found 1500 mustard gas containers but not nuclear warheads? Found chemical trucks all over but no H-bomb? Found everything on the list but the granddaddy "Global Warming Accelerator" weapon! Well, then there were no WMDs!! Now the public protests and demands withdraw.

The "liberal" media is against a conservative Pres, especially one that "stole" the election in the first place. A real, genuine justification for a war goes against their grain.

The US must get away from the UN. But for Hunter's fear of a world bully, the US would not allow such an invasion. The public still has some control over what the pols do and I can't see a scenario like that happening. China? well...............


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 18, 2007)

Njaco said:


> But for Hunter's fear of a world bully, the US would not allow such an invasion. The public still has some control over what the pols do and I can't see a scenario like that happening.



You say that now.......but what about in 25 years? 50 years? 75 Years?

I am sure the countries around Germany never thought they would see WW1 coming.... or perhaps WW2 (well maybe lol).

What about Japan when it started flexing it's military might before 1940.

I am not comparing USA to Germany or Japan but I am just trying to make a point that goverments change, popular opinion changes, all things change over time.

I agree USA would never do such a thing .....now. But who knows what the USA will look like in 25, 50, 75 years.

When you are part of the most powerful nation on the planet.....well I am sure you are not to concerned. But people living in smaller nations might be a little more concerned. I am not willing to blindly "trust" USA with my life, future or my sovereignty.

I say this with all the respect in the world towards USA, but I trust no one blindly when they are holding a much bigger stick than I am.  

Thats my point


----------



## Njaco (Apr 18, 2007)

Oh I agree with you and I may be a bit naive when it comes to putting my faith in the public to force the Gov to do the proper thing.

I just don't know how it would work out. Sometimes I believe that the US should go back to a neutral position but keeping with your Teddy Roosevelt comment, we should carry a _really_ big stick behind our backs to protect ourselves. I think the politicians get our country into too much crap and then can't get us out.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 18, 2007)

Hunter368 said:


> You say that now.......but what about in 25 years? 50 years? 75 Years?
> 
> I am sure the countries around Germany never thought they would see WW1 coming.... or perhaps WW2 (well maybe lol).
> 
> ...




Living in Canada for 5 years, I understand where you're coming from. But look at this way - look at the US 25 years ago and then look at the US today - little change. Even go back 40 years; the biggest difference (in my opinion) is more civil rights laws and more sensitivity toward minority groups (some ridiculous, some necessary). I think our societies and cultures are so similar any changes are usually transparent when viewed from "sitting on the fence."


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 18, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Living in Canada for 5 years, I understand where you're coming from. But look at this way - look at the US 25 years ago and then look at the US today - little change. Even go back 40 years; the biggest difference (in my opinion) is more civil rights laws and more sensitivity toward minority groups (some ridiculous, some necessary). I think our societies and cultures are so similar any changes are usually transparent when viewed from "sitting on the fence."



Believe me Joe there is no other country I would sooner live beside then the USA. I love alot of things about USA, I trust the USA more than any other nation.

But I could be living next to the Virgin Mary herself......I still would not trust her 100%.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 18, 2007)

Civettone said:


> So now you're also a scientist and expert on WMDs? Personally, I couldn't be sure something is a WMD if you put it right on my desk. And then I start couphing up blood and my eyes start popping out...



Now you are just being stupid and instulting.  

Did I ever say that I was a scientist or expert on WMD's? 

No so dont go and insult my intelligence...

First of all, we recieve training on WMDs and how to tell what they are. Second of all I did not identify the mustard gas that was found, I flew the teams out and back that did identify it though.

Third do you even know what Anthropene Injectors are? I carried 2 of them on me at all times.

So again before you go and make accusations as you are, learn about the subject and get a fricken clue before you piss me off.


----------



## Civettone (Apr 18, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Now you are just being stupid and instulting.
> Did I ever say that I was a scientist or expert on WMD's?
> No so dont go and insult my intelligence...


Chill down dude, I wasn't insulting your intelligence. I said I wouldn't recognize a WMD either! You need to be an expert to recognize it as a WMD, and you said you saw it yourself. You didn't mention any experts around you...




> Third do you even know what Anthropene Injectors are? I carried 2 of them on me at all times.


No ... but I do know what *Atropine* injectors are. If I really was insulting your intelligence, I would say you can't even say it right... 

So Chris, what was found and where? Perhaps you'll find it mentioned in the Survey Report. Only 700 pages to browse through...
Iraq Survey Group Final Report

Except for two members, all I've heard from you guys is how the media tricks us and that the truth is hidden ... isn't that convenient? You can prove anything by that. And what about right-wing media then? How come they don't provide proof?
And note that I'm not using any media sources, I'm using official reports. Like I said before, the guys at the Pentagon and the CIA would sell their mothers to find WMDs in Iraq. 

Kris


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 18, 2007)

Civettone said:


> Chill down dude, I wasn't insulting your intelligence. I said I wouldn't recognize a WMD either! You need to be an expert to recognize it as a WMD, and you said you saw it yourself. You didn't mention any experts around you...
> 
> 
> No ... but I do know what *Atropine* injectors are. If I really was insulting your intelligence, I would say you can't even say it right...
> ...



Careful kris,

You said to Chris "So now you're also a scientist and expert on WMDs?"

That is rude and insulting.

Then you are being a smartazz by making fun of him on a spelling error.

You have an agruement with WMD but don't lose it by turning this into an arguement with a Mod. Stay on course and be respectful.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 18, 2007)

Civettone said:


> Chill down dude, I wasn't insulting your intelligence. I said I wouldn't recognize a WMD either! You need to be an expert to recognize it as a WMD, and you said you saw it yourself. You didn't mention any experts around you...



I said I saw the site myself and walked though the site...

Go back and read the post, if you dont understand what I am saying then please ask and I will tell you but dont tell me what I mean by my words.

2nd if something that I saw with my own 2 eyes was identified by Chem experts then yes I have seen it with my own 2 eyes. That is more than you have ever seen on the subject.




Civettone said:


> No ... but I do know what *Atropine* injectors are. If I really was insulting your intelligence, I would say you can't even say it right...



Simple typo, you make them too...



Civettone said:


> So Chris, what was found and where? Perhaps you'll find it mentioned in the Survey Report. Only 700 pages to browse through...
> Iraq Survey Group Final Report



I dont give a damn what that report says. I know what has been seen and what was reported as found by our units. If it does not make into a report sounds to me like there is a cover up going on...

Sorry Civ but I was there, I know what I saw and what others have seen. I know that I am wrong though, because a citizen of Belgium knows more about what is going on a US (and her allies) military conflict than the people that were there.

Civettone if you read on a piece of paper that the color of the roof at 15 Street was Red and I went to 15 Street and saw the roof was Blue you would tell me that I am wrong. I was there I saw the roof, you have only read about it, but you are wrong.



Civettone said:


> Except for two members, all I've heard from you guys is how the media tricks us and that the truth is hidden ... isn't that convenient? You can prove anything by that. And what about right-wing media then? How come they don't provide proof?
> And note that I'm not using any media sources, I'm using official reports. Like I said before, the guys at the Pentagon and the CIA would sell their mothers to find WMDs in Iraq.
> 
> Kris



Then you again are proving that you are not reading a single thing that I post or you have selective reading of my posts because I have given you many instances of what I have seen and what other things have been found. Our unit reported finds when we were there. If they do not make it into a report well then I dont know what to tell you, but questioning my honor and integrity like that sure is pretty piss poor in my opinion.


----------



## Civettone (Apr 18, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I said I saw the site myself and walked though the site...
> Go back and read the post, if you dont understand what I am saying then please ask and I will tell you but dont tell me what I mean by my words.


Don't pull that one on me again. You didn't say anything about experts. You need to be an expert to know what a WMD is. (Or why were those experts there.) So then I asked, are you an expert? No, you're not. I also said I wasn't an expert either, so I don't see what you could find insulting about that. 




> Simple typo, you make them too...


More than I'm aware of. If I wanted to ridicule you, I would have used that typo to my advantage, saying you don't even know how they are called, so how... 




> I dont give a damn what that report says. I know what has been seen and what was reported as found by our units. If it does not make into a report sounds to me like there is a cover up going on...


Well, if you want I can give you some other examples where the US Military claimed that WMDs were found, and that a team of specialists later found they weren't WMDs or no longer active. 
So again, where was it and what was it?




> Then you again are proving that you are not reading a single thing


I do read your post but you systematically say EVERYTHING is wrong except for what you've seen with your own eyes. I disagree with that. And I've already explained why I disagree with that. I've made analogies with WW2 eye witness accounts. "I've shot down a He 113 and I don't care if you tell me there never was one. Who was there? You or I??"

I do respect you Chris, more than you know, but I don't believe everything you say even though I believe you're being truthful about what you've seen.

Kris


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 18, 2007)

ZZzzzzzz.....


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 18, 2007)

Kris you say you respect him but.....you post like you don't. Don't pay lip service to anyone here. You say one thing then you post sarcastic post the next second. You can disagree with the Mods here, god knows I have, but do it in a respectful way. You can just say " lets agree to disagree on this". Believe me I know the message you are trying to get across.....just do it without getting banned.

I will say again:

Careful kris,

You said to Chris "So now you're also a scientist and expert on WMDs?"

That is rude and insulting.

Then you are being a smartazz by making fun of him on a spelling error.

You have an agruement with WMD but don't lose it by turning this into an arguement with a Mod. Stay on course and be respectful.

Just drop the whole thing with Chris.

Stay on subject here.....you will not win any arguement with a Mod.


----------



## Civettone (Apr 18, 2007)

I disagree. Hunter, you are not impartial either, are you?

One needs to be an expert to correctly identify WMDs. Chris is not. So I asked "Are you a scientist and expert on WMD?"

I did not want to insult Chris. If I gave that impression, I apologize. 

But now I would like to continue the discussion. And I can also do without Matt's sarcastic comments and his habit of making claims without backing them up.

Kris


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 18, 2007)

If you don't like my sarcasm, you have come to the wrong place Civ. My sarcasm defines my 5000 posts. So get used to it.


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 18, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> If you don't like my sarcasm, you have come to the wrong place Civ. My sarcasm defines my 5000 posts. So get used to it.



LOL We love you (in purely manly sort of way, burp!) Matt even if some do not.


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 18, 2007)

Thanks, Hunter.


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 18, 2007)

Civettone said:


> I disagree. Hunter, you are not impartial either, are you?
> 
> One needs to be an expert to correctly identify WMDs. Chris is not. So I asked "Are you a scientist and expert on WMD?"
> 
> ...



You are back peddeling.....You said to Chris "So now you're also a scientist and expert on WMDs?"

That is sarcasim and rude, don't think your little changing of the words can get you out of it. Just say sorry without making excuses or changing what you said. Then get back on the subject.

Please explain how I am not impartial on this subject. I am trying to help before you go to far and start a huge war with Chris (which you would not win).


----------



## Civettone (Apr 18, 2007)

> You are back peddeling.....You said to Chris "So now you're also a scientist and expert on WMDs?"
> 
> That is sarcasim and rude, don't think your little changing of the words can get you out of it. Just say sorry without making excuses or changing what you said. Then get back on the subject.


What? So the word 'also' is what makes it an insult? 




> Please explain how I am not impartial on this subject.


You agree with Chris on the war in Iraq and WMDs. As such you'll be more perceptive to criticism on him than you would be on me, as you clearly didn't notice some of the accusation I've had to take this last days.
Now I'm ok with all of that, and no one is unbiased, just pointing out that I don't see it the way you do.



> I am trying to help before you go to far and start a huge war with Chris (which you would not win).


You were the one who started talking about a war between Chris and I. I was shocked when I read it. 
Adler and I have had several heated discussions before, so I fail to see what is so different about this one. And if Chris has a problem with my post, he should say so in his role as moderator. Or another moderator should step in. Hunter, I like you but you're not a mod.

And now I would like to go on with the discussion.
Kris


----------



## Njaco (Apr 18, 2007)

Can someone please enlighten me and tell me how many years of schooling, college, tech school and such that I would need to recognize a bomb?


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 18, 2007)

28 years


----------



## Civettone (Apr 18, 2007)

They call in experts to identify WMDs. That makes me conclude that you need to be an expert to identify WMDs.
Njaco, you may very well be an expert. I don't know as I don't know a single thing about you. I know Chris is a military helicopter pilot, and I bet a damn good one too.

And again, he didn't mention he flew in experts. Had I had known this, I wouldn't have made the comment. He said he saw it with his own eyes. 
Kris


----------



## mkloby (Apr 18, 2007)

Matt's sarcasm brings mad flava(I sincerely apologize for that) to the forum. I misunderstood him at first too.


Civettone said:


> no one is unbiased


Now that's the kind of stuff I like to hear!

Civettone brings up a good question - if NBCs were found in Iraq, then why is are official gov't reports stating the opposite. I honestly have legitimate answer to this. However, "facts" released to the public are different from what is not released...

Adler's experience is not isolated, nor is he incorrect in what he saw. Obviously I was not there, but his story is not uncommon. The Army has NBC guys attached to every unit that deal with these threats. Now, it goes without saying that NBCs *found* in Iraq were substantially less than the US gov't expected to find. However, that is not the same as meaning that they did not exist. With scatterings as such found, it seems intuitive to believe that there are MANY that have not been found. You would not develop a sparse sprinkling of token NBCs, that just does not make sense in reality... at least not to me. I'd be like the USMC procuring 1 and a half Ospreys...

Chris was a Crew Chief - don't insult him by calling him a nasty pilot.


----------



## Njaco (Apr 18, 2007)

I am a nobody. I have never served. I have never been to college. I have never held elected office, nor written a book (yet).

But I do have an opinion.

An opinion based upon what I read, see, hear and occasionally I throw in common sense. I'm new to this board but I have read the previous posts by many here, I see their photos in places I pray they are able to safely leave from. I wish I had the knowledge they have. And I'm glad that they choose to share with the rest of us.

But that doesn't mean I am one sided. An earlier post by me on Global Warming you questioned about sources and I have to admit I was wrong although I found some things close to what I was trying to say. When I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But I do trust my common sense.

Experts to find WMDs? My common sense says that if I was in the military, stationed in a sensitive area, a dangerous area, they military will make damn sure I know what I'm doing and what I'm looking at. Some things don't take a scientist to figure out. Its called not finding the forest cause ther's too many trees.


----------



## Njaco (Apr 18, 2007)

I also get alittle pissy at times


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 18, 2007)

I'll agree with that Jersey logic.


----------



## Civettone (Apr 18, 2007)

Why were these either hidden for Iraq Survey Group or why did the Iraq Survey Group not mention them, even though it's in their best interest to make them public? 

If Chris would tell us which site he's talking about, perhaps we (or he) can take a quick peek at the Survey Report and see it being mentioned there. Perhaps that will clarify things.

_Since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, several reported finds of chemical weapons were announced. During the invasion itself, there were half a dozen incidents in which the US military announced that it had found chemical weapons. All of these claims were based on field reports, and were later retracted. Another such post-war case occurred on January 9, 2004, when Icelandic munitions experts and Danish military engineers discovered 36 120-mm mortar rounds containing liquid buried in Southern Iraq. While initial tests suggested that the rounds contained a blister agent, a chemical weapon banned by the Geneva Convention, subsequent analysis by American and Danish experts showed that no chemical agent was present._ 
(as reported by the Danish military)



> Chris was a Crew Chief - don't insult him by calling him a nasty pilot.


Damn! I just keep on getting myself deeper and deeper in trouble!  Now my a$$ is getting banned for sure!! 

Kris


----------



## Civettone (Apr 18, 2007)

Njaco said:


> Experts to find WMDs? My common sense says that if I was in the military, stationed in a sensitive area, a dangerous area, they military will make damn sure I know what I'm doing and what I'm looking at. Some things don't take a scientist to figure out. Its called not finding the forest cause ther's too many trees.


Njaco, I don't think you're nobody. You're as smart or as dumb as any of us here. Nobody knows it all. We can just hope that if we stick out heads together we'll get a step closer to the truth.

As to the experts, my last example shows how much work goes into it identifying the chemicals and to see if they are still active. Not only was it tested by an British-Danish team, it was subsequently tested by members of the US-led Iraq Survey Group, after which one shell was sent to the US Department of Energy’s National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory in Idaho before reaching a definite conclusion. 

So apparently it's not that easy...
Kris


----------



## Njaco (Apr 18, 2007)

Hell I'm probably dumber than most  

But the one thing that I believe you should realize. Even on this board the members must be sensitive about what they can and cannot divulge. To turn it around even the gov. might be using the same rule for itself and giving dis-information as to what is NOT found.  



> _Why were these either hidden for Iraq Survey Group or why did the Iraq Survey Group not mention them, even though it's in their best interest to make them public?_



I really don't know and I can only guess. See this that I found and you might be able to understand why the military doesn't want to let on they found WMDs.
Audit: Many U.S. weapons in Iraq missing - Conflict in Iraq - MSNBC.com



> _January 9, 2004, when Icelandic munitions experts and Danish military engineers discovered 36 120-mm mortar rounds containing liquid buried in Southern Iraq_.



This was just one location. Some on this board have been to others. One big dirtpile doesn't there isn't something hidden somewhere else. Again, I hear what a few on this board say and what they have posted in the past and I just have to say I lean towards their credibility than something on a paper or a screen.

Again it a matter of using all that is available to make an informed opnion. Thats what I did and from my little hole in Joisey I say there were WMDs.

BTW. What the hell does it matter? We're there, trying to do our best. The bitch is the questions of removing our troops before the job is finished. WMDs is soooo 2004!


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 18, 2007)

Civ,

I have no problem with you either, you ask a lot of good questions. But you were starting to get Chris annoyed and not letting up. I have seen members come and go, I know what can get a member banned.....you were heading in that direction. All I was saying was what I thought you needed to hear to slow you down little. You have slowed down a little since I said that.....was it b/c what I said or did you slow down by yourself? I don't care which as long as you did.

No, I am no Mod "here", but I know what a Mod will put up with and what he will not. I just want to keep good members around for the betterment of myself and everyone else on this forum. We all learn from each other. Sometimes I can come across as a bit of a peace maker....thats fine by me.

I really don't care if you prove Chris wrong or that I agree with him. (by the way I agree with you also to a degree) I also don't follow all your posts or what Chris says to you on other threads. I am speaking only about this thread.

But I have said my peace, say what you like.....but you seem to have toned down your remarks some. Which is good.


----------



## Civettone (Apr 18, 2007)

Njaco said:


> I really don't know and I can only guess. See this that I found and you might be able to understand why the military doesn't want to let on they found WMDs.
> Audit: Many U.S. weapons in Iraq missing - Conflict in Iraq - MSNBC.com


Njaco, are you sure about this url? This is about nearly one of every 25 weapons the U.S. military bought for Iraqi security forces missing.  




> This was just one location.


Yes, but it's a good indication of how difficult it is to correctly identify WMDs. Remember, that British-Danish team concluded that they were WMDs. It was only after further research that this was ruled out causing a Danish re-evaluation of their own equipment...




> All I was saying was what I thought you needed to hear to slow you down little. You have slowed down a little since I said that.....was it b/c what I said or did you slow down by yourself?


No, that's because Chris hasn't replied yet! 
Anyway, Hunter, you meant well and I should thank you as it's pretty obvious you only meant well. At the time I felt you were sticking up for Chris and I felt I had done nothing wrong, so I reacted too harshly on your post. 

Kris


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 18, 2007)

Civettone said:


> Anyway, Hunter, you meant well and I should thank you as it's pretty obvious you only meant well. At the time I felt you were sticking up for Chris and I felt I had done nothing wrong, so I reacted too harshly on your post.
> 
> Kris



No problem, just trying to help out. 

I always like to see a devils advocate on the forum.


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 18, 2007)

.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 19, 2007)

Civettone said:


> Don't pull that one on me again. You didn't say anything about experts. You need to be an expert to know what a WMD is. (Or why were those experts there.) So then I asked, are you an expert? No, you're not. I also said I wasn't an expert either, so I don't see what you could find insulting about that.



Never said I was an expert but I know what the Chem guys in our units have found. They are experts and you certainly are not. If they verify what we see with our own 2 eyes that is eneogh evidence for me and a hell of lot more evidence than what you find on the internet especially when someone uses Wikipedia...



Civettone said:


> Well, if you want I can give you some other examples where the US Military claimed that WMDs were found, and that a team of specialists later found they weren't WMDs or no longer active.
> So again, where was it and what was it?



Again I have allready told what we found in the many posts previous to this one. You may go back and read them again if you wish, since you obviously did not again if you are asking me.

As for locations, the sites were various locations between Irbel and Tikrit. One was an underground bunker location near our camp. We were there for almost a whole year before we found this one that we were practically sitting on.



Civettone said:


> I do read your post but you systematically say EVERYTHING is wrong except for what you've seen with your own eyes. I disagree with that. And I've already explained why I disagree with that. I've made analogies with WW2 eye witness accounts. "I've shot down a He 113 and I don't care if you tell me there never was one. Who was there? You or I??"



I do not disagree with everything but I certainly disagree with a liberal who makes judgements calls me and my other service members liars as to what was found and not found, especially when the person questioning my integrity has never been in a combat zone in the middle of Iraq let alone served in the military...



Civettone said:


> I do respect you Chris, more than you know, but I don't believe everything you say even though I believe you're being truthful about what you've seen.
> 
> Kris



And that is your loss because I have nothing to lie about...

Believe what you wish to believe and one day you will see the truth, oh great one.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 19, 2007)

Civettone said:


> They call in experts to identify WMDs. That makes me conclude that you need to be an expert to identify WMDs.
> Njaco, you may very well be an expert. I don't know as I don't know a single thing about you. I know Chris is a military helicopter pilot, and I bet a damn good one too.



First of all I *was* a Crew Chief not a pilot...



Civettone said:


> And again, he didn't mention he flew in experts. Had I had known this, I wouldn't have made the comment. He said he saw it with his own eyes.
> Kris



Yes I did see them with my own two eyes. Do I have to repeat that again. 

And yes these experts were our units Chem Officers and NCOs, (every Division in the US Army has them) they tested the sites and the weapons found.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 19, 2007)

mkloby said:


> Civettone brings up a good question - if NBCs were found in Iraq, then why is are official gov't reports stating the opposite. I honestly have legitimate answer to this. However, "facts" released to the public are different from what is not released...
> 
> Adler's experience is not isolated, nor is he incorrect in what he saw. Obviously I was not there, but his story is not uncommon. The Army has NBC guys attached to every unit that deal with these threats. Now, it goes without saying that NBCs *found* in Iraq were substantially less than the US gov't expected to find. However, that is not the same as meaning that they did not exist. With scatterings as such found, it seems intuitive to believe that there are MANY that have not been found. You would not develop a sparse sprinkling of token NBCs, that just does not make sense in reality... at least not to me. I'd be like the USMC procuring 1 and a half Ospreys...



It does not matter. I concede that someone who was not in Iraq knows more about the subject matter than I do. It is not worth the headache that he gives me...



mkloby said:


> Chris was a Crew Chief - don't insult him by calling him a nasty pilot.



Damn right!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 19, 2007)

Civettone said:


> If Chris would tell us which site he's talking about, perhaps we (or he) can take a quick peek at the Survey Report and see it being mentioned there. Perhaps that will clarify things.



I am sorry but I can not tell you the exact locations of the sites because I do not know the coordinats of the sites. The sites were locations out in the desert. That is the honest to god truth as well. I dont keep coordinates in my head. I am sure there is a record of it in our units files because the Army keeps everything but I do not have access to any of that information as I know longer have a clearence.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 19, 2007)

Hunter368 said:


> I really don't care if you prove Chris wrong or that I agree with him. (by the way I agree with you also to a degree) I also don't follow all your posts or what Chris says to you on other threads. I am speaking only about this thread.



Here is what I truely believe.

Iraq had WMD's which were moved out of the country and burried at locations to still be found throughout the country (you can hide anything there and it will never be found). Captured Iraqi Generals have even stated that the WMD's were moved to Syria just prior to the invasion.

I dont think the ammount of WMD's was as much as we thought before the war started and I believe that most of it was of deteriorated state and would not have worked anyway. 

But he still had them. If there were none then there would not have been a need for the Chem units that were found, the chem protective gear that had been used along with the atropine injectors that had been used.

That being said, he did have them and even if he did not he led the world to believe that he did.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 19, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Here is what I truely believe.
> 
> Iraq had WMD's which were moved out of the country and burried at locations to still be found throughout the country (you can hide anything there and it will never be found). Captured Iraqi Generals have even stated that the WMD's were moved to Syria just prior to the invasion.
> 
> ...


And with that said, you didn't need to be a chemical engineer or scientist to figure it all out!!


----------



## mkloby (Apr 19, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Here is what I truely believe.
> 
> Iraq had WMD's which were moved out of the country and burried at locations to still be found throughout the country (you can hide anything there and it will never be found). Captured Iraqi Generals have even stated that the WMD's were moved to Syria just prior to the invasion.
> 
> ...




I agree with you fully. That was what I was trying to get at with my post earlier - saying that because the anticipated number has not been found, does not mean they never existed...


----------



## Civettone (Apr 19, 2007)

You can believe what you want, fine by me, but it seems a bit of a weak case. 
You found some degraded leftovers and you conclude that there's more to be found.
You don't find what you want so you assume it has been smuggled out of the country.
You find some suits so you assume they had WMDs ready. 

That's like finding a coin in your backyard and conluding there's a treasure under your house...
Kris


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 19, 2007)

As a third neutral party....I thought that was funny post.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 19, 2007)

Civettone said:


> You can believe what you want, fine by me, but it seems a bit of a weak case.
> You found some degraded leftovers and you conclude that there's more to be found.
> You don't find what you want so you assume it has been smuggled out of the country.
> You find some suits so you assume they had WMDs ready.
> ...



Kris, at the start of the whole mess the ground rules for Iraq was NO WMDs. They were supposed to remove ALL of them, and as stated they did retain several Skuds that were used at the start of the war. Again, if they had one or 100 WMDs they were in violation.

Take all the circumstantial evidence and real evidence and it shows there were WMDs there.

If Saddam Hussein fully complied he'd still be in power today; raping, pillaging, and murdering members of his sports teams for not winning medals in international competitions...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 19, 2007)

Civettone said:


> You can believe what you want, fine by me, but it seems a bit of a weak case.
> You found some degraded leftovers and you conclude that there's more to be found.
> You don't find what you want so you assume it has been smuggled out of the country.
> You find some suits so you assume they had WMDs ready.
> ...



No it is not weak at all. You have not provided anything that proves that there were none at all, absolutely none at all. You dont know that there were none. 

The only thing I can tell you is this. Get out of your safe environment go to Iraq and see it for yourself...


----------



## Civettone (Apr 19, 2007)

Adler, were those atropine injectors found together with the mustard gas you guys found? Could it have been that those injectors dated back from the 80s? Could it have been that the mustard gas was no longer active? You said those experts identified them as mustard gas. Does that mean they hadn't degraded yet? 



90 to 95% of the plants which produced WMDs were taken out of action by 1998. Now this doesn't mean that those 5 to 10% is still working. Making WMDs is a complex affair and needs a large infrastructure. Several plants need to work to make others work. Just imagine destroying 90% of the factories in the US. Not one factory would still be working as one of their subcontractors would surely be out of action. Another option is restructuring the industry but reports later showed that this did not change, no flow in scientists from one sector to another. 
I don't see anyone claiming that Iraq still had the capbility to produce so I'm not going to go on about this.

Iraq did not tell the UN all what it destroyed. Later investigations showed that Iraq had destroyed weapons and material without telling this to the UN. 90 to 95% of the WMDs on the list were accounted for. 

As production was discontinued before 1998, those few WMDs unaccounted for would have become degraded.

These are facts. You may have your own opinion and your own theories but please start from facts.
Kris


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 19, 2007)

Civettone said:


> Adler, were those atropine injectors found together with the mustard gas you guys found? Could it have been that those injectors dated back from the 80s? Could it have been that the mustard gas was no longer active? You said those experts identified them as mustard gas. Does that mean they hadn't degraded yet?



I can not tell you dates or anything. I did not touch the stuff or pick any of it up. I do have a Iraqi helmet that I picked up from the bunch though!  





Civettone said:


> 90 to 95% of the plants which produced WMDs were taken out of action by 1998. Now this doesn't mean that those 5 to 10% is still working. Making WMDs is a complex affair and needs a large infrastructure. Several plants need to work to make others work. Just imagine destroying 90% of the factories in the US. Not one factory would still be working as one of their subcontractors would surely be out of action. Another option is restructuring the industry but reports later showed that this did not change, no flow in scientists from one sector to another.
> I don't see anyone claiming that Iraq still had the capbility to produce so I'm not going to go on about this.
> 
> Iraq did not tell the UN all what it destroyed. Later investigations showed that Iraq had destroyed weapons and material without telling this to the UN. 90 to 95% of the WMDs on the list were accounted for.
> ...



And were do you get these facts from because I think it is hogwash. Iraq did not get rid of all of there WMD's and that is something that you can not prove.

The things that have been found by varying units that have served there is Fact, you can start with the facts.

I am sorry but I honestly think you are blind to the truth because of your liberal agenda. I honestly dont care if he had WMDs or not. The man had to go and I supported the war from the beginning and I support ever last soldier that has to go there, so I dont care if he had them or not. If someone can prove to me that he had no WMDs and that everything I saw and everything that everyone else has seen is just a figment of there imagination then so be it. I honestly am not biased. I dont care for Bush or any of the politicians as a matter of fact, so it would not hurt my feelings. I am open to whatever the truth is, but Iraq did have WMDs....

Discussion over for me because this is going know where....


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 19, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Discussion over for me because this is going know where....


.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 19, 2007)

Okay the poll that I started in the wrong thread is now in this thread. This poll is just to get peoples opinions, please vote.


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 19, 2007)

Done


----------



## Civettone (Apr 19, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I honestly dont care if he had WMDs or not. The man had to go and I supported the war from the beginning and I support ever last soldier that has to go there, so I dont care if he had them or not


Fair enough. But that's why you went for war, not to remove Saddam Hussein. That's the reason why so few countries supported the war because it was based on wrong reasons: Iraq did not have a WMD capability.

These facts come from official UNSCOM and IAEA reports.

I'm also disappointed Adler that you claim you've seen so much yet you don't know any details. You had me thinking those were still active WMDs but it could just as well have been degraded mustard gas. That my friend is no longer a WMD. 

Also your claim of those atropine injectors means nothing. You base huge conclusions on things which could well have dated from the 80s when we all know Saddam had WMDs. 

And you call me a liberal though you don't know a damn thing about my political stand or the party I vote for. 

Kris

edit: fixed the quote, apology to Matt.


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 19, 2007)

And that's not my quote, Civvy.


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 19, 2007)

Civettone said:


> Fair enough. But that's why you went for war, not to remove Saddam Hussein. That's the reason why so few countries supported the war because it was based on wrong reasons: Iraq did not have a WMD capability.
> 
> These facts come from official UNSCOM and IAEA reports.
> 
> ...



A big part for me is not whether he had them or not.

But it was thought he did have them or might have them. UN sent in inspectors and he kicked them out or refused them access to certain areas. That strongly suggests that he did have them, again whether he did or not does not matter, he acted like he did have them.

So USA acted to protect itself and the countries around Iraq, and to protect Israel, and to protect Saddam's people.

Kris you have to admit he acted guilty as hell, where there is smoke....most times there is fire.

Saddam has to hold a lot of the blame for his country being invaded.....even if he had no WMD.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 19, 2007)

Hunter368 said:


> A big part for me is not whether he had them or not.
> 
> But it was thought he did have them or might have them. UN sent in inspectors and he kicked them out or refused them access to certain areas. That strongly suggests that he did have them, again whether he did or not does not matter, he acted like he did have them.
> 
> ...


*BINGO!!!!*


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 19, 2007)

"It appears we have appointed our worst generals to command forces, and our most gifted and brilliant to edit newspapers. In fact, I discovered by reading newspapers that these journalists/geniuses plainly saw all my strategic defects from the start, yet failed to inform me until it was too late. Accordingly, I'm readily willing to yield my command to these obviously superior intellects and I'll in turn, do my best for the cause by writing editorials....after the fact."




Robert E. Lee, 1863


----------



## mkloby (Apr 19, 2007)

This ranting is not directed at anybody, and is slightly off topic. One of the big things that absolutely shocks me is that many act as if Saddam Hussein was a decent leader, out there trying to improve the lot of his people in this world. They talk about how we violated Iraq's national sovereignty and international law - *what about the right of human beings to live without being exterminated???* You can disagree with the whole NBC reasoning for the war, and that's fine. I don't see how you can oppose the war on moral grounds. How can you say it is moral to leave a regime in power that exterminates, rapes, etc their own people??? That is a question that I never receive an answer from those that oppose the war. Many of the former fiece European nations lack the testosterone to stand and fight for anything, this pacifist attitude is insidiously infecting America. I'm not saying the US had purely altruistic motives in this - that was a major reason, though. And the increased casualties that have occured since the invasion is not a valid argument in my opinion - if the Iraqi gov't gassed, raped, and terrorized the population like the baathists did, the situation may be different. We may not have the power to stop all evil regimes, but that doesn't mean you don't try to do what you can, so I don't want to hear why American troops aren't clamping down on Darfur. Call me crazy, but I have been raised to believe that if you see evil being done, it is YOUR responsibility to stop it...


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 19, 2007)

Wonder who will respond to that? Hmmm


----------



## Civettone (Apr 19, 2007)

> UN sent in inspectors and he kicked them out or refused them access to certain areas. That strongly suggests that he did have them, again whether he did or not does not matter, he acted like he did have them.


That's a good remark Hunter and I'm glad you mentioned it. 
Saddam and Iraqi authorities tried to cover up as much as they could. It's a dictatorship and that bastard had a whole lot more to cover up than his WMDs. I also suspect he felt it was necessary to take a stand against the West, not making it too easy on them.
Be that as it may, the UN reports back in 1998 were quite clear. Saddam did not have a WMD capability. The US and UK chose to disregard this and demanded a new UNSCOM team. This didn't give them what they wanted either. The US/UK said they would go through the UN Security Council. When this didn't give them the authorisation they still went at it alone. That suggests that no matter what, they would have gone to war. It was simply impossible for the Iraqis to account for everything: like I said, much was destroyed without them telling the UN, or was dumped once it was degraded. 

Now that link Njaco posted makes a lot of sense: nearly one of every 25 weapons the U.S. military bought for Iraqi security forces is missing. Njaco, if you read this, it took a while but now I get your point. 

But let's take a look at those weapon inspections. UNSCOM was doing a good job but when it wasn't delivering the results the US was hoping for, the team was changed. This started with that row about the presidential palaces where the US believed the Iraqis were producing WMDs. Remember that? Saddam refused - like I said, because he didn't want to show anything more than needed - and this almost lead to new attacks. Saddam gave in and when UNSCOM tested for nuclear and chemical weapons, they found nothing. Dick Spertzel, head of the biological inspection team, declared that they never expected to find those weapons but that he didn't want to give the Iraqis the "benefit of a negative result". Can you imagine that? That's deliberately looking for framing the Iraqis instead of giving a objective analysis. Spertzel was a protegee of ... Richard Butler who took over UNSCOM in 1998. Butler was chosen by the US do protect their interests. The history and viewpoints of Butler were well known so it's a bit strange to have him head UNSCOM. He replaced Elkeus who had an arrangement with the Iraqis to have full clearance in exchange for a limited number of inspectors. But Butler one day simply showed up at the Ba'ath headquarters and demanded full clearance. The Iraqis allowed 4 inspectors to enter, then gave in to allow 6, but Butler wanted complete access to all archives of the Ba'ath party. So he called the US ambassadar at the UN! who gave him clearance to pull back the UN inspectors. 
You simply don't change rules without warning. So Butler deliberately provoked the Iraqis knowing very very well that they would not allow the full team as this was a part of the agreement with UNSCOM. Two days later Iraq was bombed which ended any chance of bringing the inspectors back.

I'm not trying to turn things around and making the Americans the bad guys and the Iraqis the good ones, but I hope my story gives a bit of a different insight in pulling back those inspection teams. 

Kris


----------



## Civettone (Apr 19, 2007)

mkloby said:


> This ranting is not directed at anybody, and is slightly off topic. One of the big things that absolutely shocks me is that many act as if Saddam Hussein was a decent leader, out there trying to improve the lot of his people in this world. They talk about how we violated Iraq's national sovereignty and international law - *what about the right of human beings to live without being exterminated???* You can disagree with the whole NBC reasoning for the war, and that's fine. I don't see how you can oppose the war on moral grounds. How can you say it is moral to leave a regime in power that exterminates, rapes, etc their own people??? That is a question that I never receive an answer from those that oppose the war.


It is indeed slightly off-topic as I'm only approaching this war from a legal point of view. 

I suppose those who oppose the war believe that war is not the answer, and that Iraq should free itself. That invading Iraq would probably lead to more problems and that one cannot force a regime change upon a people. Perhaps some were already seeing a civil war happening with the Iraqis fighting each other. Some also saw muslim fundamentalism rising in other muslim countries as a result of American interference. 

I don't naturally agree with this but I do wonder this: Why Saddam? There are dozens of cruel dicators around? Why Iraq? Why Saddam? Why isn't the US doing anything in Sudan? Why not North Korea? 
Kris


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 19, 2007)

Civ,

Let me ask you this, had Saddam let UN inspectors in without restricting their access and they found nothing....day after day.....month after month.

What grounds would have there been to invade Iraq by USA/UK? None

You think USA/UK would of invaded b/c Saddam was a brutal leader that treated his people like crap? Nope

There are many countries like that, you don't see USA/UK taking down all those goverments do you? nope

Had Saddam listened and followed 100% UN's orders then Iraq war would of not happened. It could not of b/c UK/USA would of had no grounds to stand on. Saddam must be held responsible more than anyone.

I am not saying there was WMD or not, I am not saying USA did not like the idea of having a reason to take out Saddam........but Saddam gave them that reason on a silver platter.


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 19, 2007)

The much vaunted Iraq Study Group from 2003...
__________________________________________________

telegraph.co.uk

By David Rennie and George Jones
Last Updated: 10:49am BST 01/08/2003



The United States has found evidence of an active programme to make weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, including "truly amazing" testimony from Iraqis ordered to dupe United Nations inspectors before the war, the man leading the hunt said yesterday.

David Kay, a former UN inspector and now the CIA's leading consultant who is joint head of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), offered an unprecedentedly bullish assessment of the hunt for weapons of mass destruction.

Although he called for patience, he predicted that doubters were in for a "surprise" by the time his work was done.

His 1,400-strong team of American, British and Australian experts scouring Iraq has not yet found actual biological or chemical weapons, Mr Kay told private Senate hearings in Washington. But there was mounting evidence of an active WMD programme, he said.

That evidence included documents detailing how to conceal arms plants as commercial facilities, and for restarting weapons production once the coast was clear, officials told reporters.

Leading Democratic congressmen, like many Labour MPs, have questioned pre-war claims made by President George W Bush and Tony Blair that Saddam Hussein had large arsenals of banned weapons, ready for use. Such critics have said they will not be satisfied by anything short of physical proof.


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 19, 2007)

Civettone said:


> I don't naturally agree with this but I do wonder this: Why Saddam? There are dozens of cruel dicators around? Why Iraq? Why Saddam? Why isn't the US doing anything in Sudan? Why not North Korea?
> Kris



Man. How many times have we heard that one.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 19, 2007)

Hunter368 said:


> Civ,
> 
> Let me ask you this, had Saddam let UN inspectors in without restricting their access and they found nothing....day after day.....month after month.
> 
> ...


*Hunter, you're batting a 1000!*


----------



## mkloby (Apr 19, 2007)

Civettone said:


> It is indeed slightly off-topic as I'm only approaching this war from a legal point of view.


I understand where you're coming from, but that's a major fault of the UN - trying to put a legality on int'l affairs. That's just not going to happen.

I suppose those who oppose the war believe that war is not the answer, and that Iraq should free itself. That invading Iraq would probably lead to more problems and that one cannot force a regime change upon a people. Perhaps some were already seeing a civil war happening with the Iraqis fighting each other. Some also saw muslim fundamentalism rising in other muslim countries as a result of American interference. 



Civettone said:


> I don't naturally agree with this but I do wonder this: Why Saddam? There are dozens of cruel dicators around? Why Iraq? Why Saddam? Why isn't the US doing anything in Sudan? Why not North Korea?
> Kris



I always get that from people, which is why I mentioned that in the post above. The fact we are not actively involved in Darfur does not mean that we should not stop any evil. Is that a "if you can't stop all evil, why bother stopping any" type of attitude? Bush wants sanctions against Sudan for not stopping the mayhem. If it continues, who knows what will happen, or if it will escalate. God knows that the Europeans won't make a serious contribution to stopping the catastrophe. I hope I'm wrong about that, and it gets thrown in my face, but i don't think it will. They just won't fight for much of anything anymore, and will keep pinning their hopes on futile diplomacy.


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 19, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> *Hunter, you're batting a 1000!*



Thanks


----------



## Civettone (Apr 19, 2007)

> I understand where you're coming from, but that's a major fault of the UN - trying to put a legality on int'l affairs. That's just not going to happen.


That's not true Matt. You know as well as I do that the US has signed the UN Charter which requires the UN to give its consent to such a war. Also, Powell and Bush declared they would go through the UN Security Council so they definitely wanted that consent as it gives them legality like in 1991.



> I always get that from people, which is why I mentioned that in the post above. The fact we are not actively involved in Darfur does not mean that we should not stop any evil. Is that a "if you can't stop all evil, why bother stopping any" type of attitude?


Sure Matt, I'm with you on this one. But why on earth all that bull on WMDs? That is the reason given by the US/UK. The humanitarian concept is all very well but you know as well as I do, that that's not what it's about. With all due respect for the US, they never cared that much for human tragedy as shown in Latin America, Africa or even Iraq when Saddam was still a good friend. 
But like you said, it's slightly off-topic. 

Kris


----------



## Civettone (Apr 19, 2007)

> Such critics have said they will not be satisfied by anything short of physical proof.


And right they are. You cannot go to war on unsubstantiated evidence. And in the end they were.




> Let me ask you this, had Saddam let UN inspectors in without restricting their access and they found nothing....day after day.....month after month.


Hunter, full cooperation by Saddam would not have mattered much as it was impossible for them to account for all WMDs. I already gave the example of Richard Butler. He was looking for a conflict and took direct orders from the US instead of from the UN. 



> What grounds would have there been to invade Iraq by USA/UK? None


Of course. UN had to give its consent like it did in 1991. Those countries didn't believe Iraq had a WMD capability and refused to give its consent. They were proven right. 



> You think USA/UK would of invaded b/c Saddam was a brutal leader that treated his people like crap? Nope


I agree but MKloby brought that up.



> There are many countries like that, you don't see USA/UK taking down all those goverments do you? nope


Like any other country, the US only think of their own national interests. They have nothing to gain in Sudan, but they do want control over Iraq.



> Had Saddam listened and followed 100% UN's orders then Iraq war would of not happened.


 See, that's where your conclusion goes wrong. You claim the UN's orders are the norm, yet you make the US and UK the judge of that. That's a clear contradiction.

Kris


----------



## Gnomey (Apr 19, 2007)

If they have found WMD in Iraq the WMD theory wasn't wrong. Sure there weren't the numbers we were led to believe but there were still there (I believe the rest are under the sand or in Syria but hey what do I know). As Hunter said earlier on Sadaam gave the US/UK the reasons they needed by blocking the UN inspectors rights of access (just like Iran is doing with the IAEA inspectors). If you have nothing to hide then were prevent access it just shows you with a guilty conscious and the Iraq war was the result...

Now on another note I read that North Korea was going to shut down its nuclear reactor (although the US - and me - doubt it --> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6562311.stm).

And on another tangent Iran has purportedly started enriching Uranium gas (only 1300 centrifuges though) so whether Iraq had WMD (which I believe it did) or not it not really the question anymore it is pretty much done and dusted. The big thing now is Iran and what are you going to do (or more accurately what will the Israeli's do) when Iran goes nuclear in the not to distant future...

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iran nuclear operations confirmed


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 19, 2007)

I guess the next time we should just allow Iran or North Korea to just go and nuke a neighboring country, then its legitimate to do something.

Reminds me of a line from an old punk rock song "Funky Western Civilization."

"They hung Jesus on a cross; they put a hole in JFK,

They put Hitler in the driver's seat and looked the other way.”


----------



## mkloby (Apr 19, 2007)

Civettone said:


> That's not true Matt. You know as well as I do that the US has signed the UN Charter which requires the UN to give its consent to such a war. Also, Powell and Bush declared they would go through the UN Security Council so they definitely wanted that consent as it gives them legality like in 1991.


I don't think I was all too clear. Sure, there's the UN charter... but the "legality" of the whole deal was thrown out the window when the US told the UN to F itself. The UN couldn't do a thing other than protest. I don't think you can argue with that. The UN can govern the actions of a member nation ONLY if they allow them to, implicitly by giving up some aspects of their own sovereignty.



Civettone said:


> Sure Matt, I'm with you on this one. But why on earth all that bull on WMDs? That is the reason given by the US/UK. The humanitarian concept is all very well but you know as well as I do, that that's not what it's about. With all due respect for the US, they never cared that much for human tragedy as shown in Latin America, Africa or even Iraq when Saddam was still a good friend.
> But like you said, it's slightly off-topic.
> 
> Kris




I can't explain why our gov't used the whole "wmd" angle as their just cause... but they did - at least publicly. I don't always agree with US foreign policy. However, bringing up US support of Iraq in the 80's does not help the present situation. Again - I never claimed the US had altruistic intent, but that doesn't mean that it's a defense against stopping a single injustice if you don't stop all.


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 19, 2007)

He did have them 1991 what he did with them or how far along they were in developement I don't know . There was some indication of him possessing them in 2003 but I've never seen concrete evidence . Atropine injectors are not WMD or an indication of possessing them but indicates they were prepared for any eventuality such as Iran


----------



## mkloby (Apr 19, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> He did have them 1991 what he did with them or how far along they were in developement I don't know . There was some indication of him possessing them in 2003 but I've never seen concrete evidence . Atropine injectors are not WMD or an indication of possessing them but indicates they were prepared for any eventuality such as Iran



You're right, atropine isn't NBC weapon... but would I stick myself with atropine unless I was in contact with a nerve agent... probably not... actually absolutely not...


----------



## Civettone (Apr 19, 2007)

mkloby said:


> I don't think I was all too clear. Sure, there's the UN charter... but the "legality" of the whole deal was thrown out the window when the US told the UN to F itself.


No, it's not. You're talking about a lacking compliance mechanism though this has nothing to do with making it less legal. Just look at the notions of resolutions. They usually come without a compliance segment but if you read up on international law you'll soon read that these resolutions can still be legally binding (depending on the nature of the resolution, as some just contain a warming, etc).

The UN Charter is a part of international law. That's a fact.
http://www.lcnp.org/global/Iraqstatemt.3.pdf




> I can't explain why our gov't used the whole "wmd" angle as their just cause... but they did - at least publicly. I don't always agree with US foreign policy. However, bringing up US support of Iraq in the 80's does not help the present situation.


I find it's a pity that they brought up WMDs. One can wonder what would have happened had they played the 'humanitarian' card. 



> Again - I never claimed the US had altruistic intent, but that doesn't mean that it's a defense against stopping a single injustice if you don't stop all.


I agree. I'm glad the sucker's gone. And every European leader is, that's why they're supporting the rebuild of Iraq. We all want the best for Iraq even though we opposed the war. May sound hypocrit but I think it's better than just being stubborn and not helping the Iraqi people.



> There was some indication of him possessing them in 2003 but I've never seen concrete evidence .


There wasn't. One can say there was stuff unaccounted for and that not everything was destroyed. But it's clear that Saddam had no WMD capability anymore, especially because he wasn't able to produce any since the 90s. The stuff that can be found is very probably degraded and although probably still harmful - you don't want it in your coffee, you know? - no longer a WMD. 
I have heard some stories of chemical suits and atropine injectors and old shells but so far these all appear to date from the 80s. Or am I forgetting some? Please point them out as I am not a walking inventory list. 


To conclude, one can still assume that there were some WMDs left because not everything has been accounted for ,but can still pop up. But there is no more doubt that Saddam had an effective WMD capability. I personally don't see how anyone can disagree with that as Saddam didn't even use any. 
It's also the conclusion of the US Iraq Survey Report with the Pentagon and the CIA behind it, the two institutions who were most desperate to find WMDs. 

Kris


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 19, 2007)

mkloby said:


> You're right, atropine isn't NBC weapon... but would I stick myself with atropine unless I was in contact with a nerve agent... probably not... actually absolutely not...


if I remember my NBC it's harmless


----------



## mkloby (Apr 19, 2007)

Civettone said:


> No, it's not. You're talking about a lacking compliance mechanism though this has nothing to do with making it less legal. Just look at the notions of resolutions. They usually come without a compliance segment but if you read up on international law you'll soon read that these resolutions can still be legally binding (depending on the nature of the resolution, as some just contain a warming, etc).
> 
> The UN Charter is a part of international law. That's a fact.
> http://www.lcnp.org/global/Iraqstatemt.3.pdf


We're just talking past each other... I'm not denying the "legal" foundation of the organization. My point is, however, what good is that when you can just tell the UN to shove it and do as you please. The UN has any effect of US policy only if the US consents. Tomorrow, the US can withdraw and become a hostile party to the UN, regardless of what the charter states or what has been signed. What is the UN going to do - wave a piece of paper? You're right, it does have to do with compliance. What good are laws when there's no way to enforce compliance? That's the reality of the UN.

Pb - If I remember my briefs on it, the whole purpose of saving the injectors is so that doses can be accounted for, so as to not administer an overdose accidentally. I believe the crap can be fatal if OD'd on...


----------



## Civettone (Apr 19, 2007)

No arguing there... 

But IIRC I brought it up as a reply to Hunter's post that Saddam did it to himself by not fully cooperating with the UN. But it's strange that the US should therefor take matters in their own hand.

It's like me having a conflict with my neighbour but willing to talk about it, while my big brother comes over to beat the crap out of him 

Kris


----------



## Maharg (Apr 20, 2007)

I don't know. But, Saddam had used them before. So I think the only reason they wern't used was the threat of what Big Brother would do to Iraq if he did.


----------



## Civettone (Apr 20, 2007)

I feel enlightened...

Kris


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 20, 2007)

Civettone said:


> It's like me having a conflict with my neighbour but willing to talk about it, while my big brother comes over to beat the crap out of him
> 
> Kris



What's wrong with that? My brother used to do that all the time!


----------



## Civettone (Apr 20, 2007)

Kris


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 20, 2007)

Civettone said:


> Fair enough. But that's why you went for war, not to remove Saddam Hussein. That's the reason why so few countries supported the war because it was based on wrong reasons: Iraq did not have a WMD capability.
> 
> These facts come from official UNSCOM and IAEA reports.



Not going there.



Civettone said:


> I'm also disappointed Adler that you claim you've seen so much yet you don't know any details. You had me thinking those were still active WMDs but it could just as well have been degraded mustard gas. That my friend is no longer a WMD.



I claim nothing, I lie about nothing. I know what I have seen and what others have seen.

You call this lies and what people have seen as worth nothing? What have you done with your life? I dont believe a thing you say anymore either because it is just liberal bull...

Yeah now you have pissed me off. You chose your words. I had a lot of respect for you and actually rather enjoyed debating with you most of the time. 

I have nothing further to say to you at all. You question my integrity (which is the one thing I think a man has besides his honor) and you are no longer worth talking to in my book. You have a good day. I am also disappointed in the fact that you think you fricken know everything when in reality you are... I will leave it at that.



Civettone said:


> Also your claim of those atropine injectors means nothing. You base huge conclusions on things which could well have dated from the 80s when we all know Saddam had WMDs.



Even if they were, not the point, he was not supposed to have them. 



Civettone said:


> And you call me a liberal though you don't know a damn thing about my political stand or the party I vote for.
> 
> Kris
> 
> edit: fixed the quote, apology to Matt.



You show that to me in the fact that you dont know a damn thing about what is going on outside your safe little environment. 

Good day Civettone. I have nothing further to say to you ever.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 20, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> He did have them 1991 what he did with them or how far along they were in developement I don't know . There was some indication of him possessing them in 2003 but I've never seen concrete evidence . Atropine injectors are not WMD or an indication of possessing them but indicates they were prepared for any eventuality such as Iran



Never said it was an NBC. Read the fricken post. I was describing things that were at the site...


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 20, 2007)

How to Win Friends and Influence People - The Dale Carnegie approach to establishing yourself in a forum.


----------



## Civettone (Apr 20, 2007)

I said you were wrong and mistaking. I never called you a liar, never questioned your integrity.

It's true that I put words in your mouth when I think that's what you meant by other words. You do it too.

I also doubt you had much respect for me as you've ridiculized most of the stuff I said as if I know nothing but you do as you were in Iraq and I wasn't. 

You have your opinion, I have mine. I don't see why you should get so upset over me disagreeing with yours.

Kris


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 20, 2007)

Can't we all just get along.


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 20, 2007)

Apparently not.  Adler's gonna blow a gasket.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 20, 2007)

When someone goes about business the way he does, yeah it pisses me off.


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 20, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> When someone goes about business the way he does, yeah it pisses me off.



I had not noticed it bugged you.....


----------



## Civettone (Apr 20, 2007)

So Adler once you've stopped being pissed off ... you said Iraq had WMDs and this was mainly (but not solely) based on the sites you saw in Northern Iraq that contained mustard gas and atropine injectors. But as you don't know for sure if the gas was still active and that the injectors didn't date from pre-1991, why are you still so sure - as you obviously claimed you were - that Iraq had WMDs? 

If you're out of this discussion, I understand. Choice is up to you. I'll be gone after this weekend anyhow, so ...
Kris


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 20, 2007)

Is this even a discussion anymore, Civvy. You have stated your position (you don't believe Adler's observations are conclusive). Can't you find evidence to support your position? Your only means of discussion are demanding other thread participants to bring you another rock. No wonder you like the UN.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 20, 2007)

Civettone said:


> So Adler once you've stopped being pissed off ... you said Iraq had WMDs and this was mainly (but not solely) based on the sites you saw in Northern Iraq that contained mustard gas and atropine injectors. But as you don't know for sure if the gas was still active and that the injectors didn't date from pre-1991, why are you still so sure - as you obviously claimed you were - that Iraq had WMDs?



Yes I do believe that Iraq had WMDs for reasons stated by myself and others. And I am sure the truth will come out... 



Civettone said:


> If you're out of this discussion, I understand. Choice is up to you. I'll be gone after this weekend anyhow, so ...
> Kris



Do you promise?


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 20, 2007)

Civettone said:


> If you're out of this discussion, I understand. Choice is up to you. I'll be gone after this weekend anyhow, so ...
> Kris



Perhaps we can give you a banvoyage.


----------



## Civettone (Apr 20, 2007)

> Do you promise?


Yes. 

Don't forget to mention it in the "things that cheered you up today" thread? 

Kris


----------

