Following Iraq's bioweapons trail

Did Iraq still have WMD's?

  • Yes Iraq had WMD's

    Votes: 9 75.0%

  • No Iraq did not have WMD's

    Votes: 2 16.7%

  • Not sure but there is more to it than has been released to the public.

    Votes: 1 8.3%
  • Total voters
    12

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

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
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?

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.
Click to expand...
IT DOESN'T GET MUCH CLEARER THAN THAT! :thumbright:
 
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

Samurai_with_Naginata.gif


the Warrior lives !!
 
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. :(
 
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
 
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".

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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.

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?
Click to expand...


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)
 
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
 
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back