Looting at Weapons Plants Was Systematic, Iraqi Says (1 Viewer)

[Batman]

Some of the looted machinery included high-precision equipment capable of making parts for nuclear arms.New York Times article(Log in required)

Now, why would a country have machinery that can make WMD's if they weren't making or planning on making WMD's?

 

[GarzaUK]

Well he was planning to make nuclear weapons - 15 years ago. Thankfully for us all the UN did their job well and made him destroy his WMD's and prevented him from having any more. Saddam was the world's biggest bluffer, trying to pretend he was big, because if Iran ever found out he had destroyed everything - goodbye Saddam.

I think Saddam preffered to be held captive to Americans than to be captive by his Iranian neigbours - he knows what they would have done to him.

 

[Naughty Nurse]

It seems to be all about things that "could" be used to make WMD, but could also be used for other things.


A simple glass bottle could be used as part of a very effective biological weapon. Should we have a world-wide ban on glass bottles?

 

[Batman]

Well he was planning to make nuclear weapons - 15 years ago. Thankfully for us all the UN did their job well

UNSCR 1441 - November 8, 2002
UNSCR 1284 - December 17, 1999
UNSCR 1205 - November 5, 1998
UNSCR 1194 - September 9, 1998
UNSCR 1154 - March 2, 1998
UNSCR 1137 - November 12, 1997
UNSCR 1134 - October 23, 1997
UNSCR 1115 - June 21, 1997
UNSCR 1060 - June 12, 1996
UNSCR 1051 - March 27, 1996
UNSCR 949 - October 15, 1994
UNSCR 715 - October 11, 1991
UNSCR 707 - August 15, 1991
UNSCR 688 - April 5, 1991
UNSCR 687 - April 3, 1991
UNSCR 686 - March 2, 1991
UNSCR 678 - November 29, 1990

That is JOB WELL DONE - passing resolutions.

 

[GarzaUK]

Did Saddam have any weapons?

Did he?

US Government has given up on it.

No weapons of mass destruction.

Isn't that what the UN wanted to do?

Mission Accomplished me thinks.

 

[Batman]

Mission Accomplished me thinks.

This U.N. resolution was passed less than four months before the invasion -

*Call for the immediate and complete disarmament of Iraq and its prohibited weapons.
*Iraq must provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA full access to Iraqi facilities, individuals, means of transportation, and documents.
*The Security Council has repeatedly warned Iraq and that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations.

You gotta lots a esplainin' to do Lucy.

 

[Batman]

Oh yeah Garza, the guy that most Europeans wanted to be the leader of the free world - had this to say right around that same time.

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

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

 

[anomaly]

Oh yeah Garza, the guy that most Europeans wanted to be the leader of the free world - had this to say right around that same time.

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

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

Kerry made some mistakes, as did many Democrats. But he did this based on false intelligence that Bush pressured out of the CIA. But, as regards to the UN and Iraq, are you aware that the UN passed several economic snctions leading to the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children? He didn't have enough to feed his country, how could the guy afford weapons? And a third world country building up an army capable of attacking the greatest army ever seen on earth-and only ten years after being humiliated in Kuwait? Selling to terrorists-no, Saddam ran a secular gov't and was considered evil by most terrorist groups (he was the lesser of two evils-the USA was number one). Even if Saddam did have weapons, he was no threat to the 'free' world at all, in any way, shape or form! You conservatives always complain about leftists criticizing Bush in any way; well, I'd say it's time for you on the right to admit that, given all we knew about Iraq in '03, invading Iraq was the wrong decision. Granted, now that we have seen a blunder the likes of which not seen since Vietnam, we must remain in Iraq until the job is done.

 

[GarzaUK]

This U.N. resolution was passed less than four months before the invasion -

*Call for the immediate and complete disarmament of Iraq and its prohibited weapons.
*Iraq must provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA full access to Iraqi facilities, individuals, means of transportation, and documents.
*The Security Council has repeatedly warned Iraq and that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations.

You gotta lots a esplainin' to do Lucy.

I guess even the UN didn't know how great a job they actually did. Like I said Saddam was a bluffer, most countries knew that Iraq wasn't a threat to national security however. I mean the dangers the Bush Admin fed the American people, including nukes lol, you'd think Saddam organized 9/11 himself.
Did you honestly think Iraq was danger to the US?

The British certainly didn't feel any fear of Iraq, it was only blind loyality of Blair that Britain invaded Iraq. Blair did a number on our parliament (like Bush with congress) by giving a dossier on WMD's that intelligence was 12 years old! Blair should be hung out to dry!

 

[Batman]

I guess even the UN didn't know how great a job they actually did. Like I said Saddam was a bluffer, most countries knew that Iraq wasn't a threat to national security however.

Yet they passed UNSCR 1441 on November 8, 2002
Nice duck and roll.

 

[Batman]

Kerry made some mistakes, as did many Democrats

Oh, the guy served on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence for eight years, part of the time when Clinton was in office and it's a mistake.
Okay.

He didn't have enough to feed his country, how could the guy afford weapons?

How did he afford to build enormous palaces?

 

[Squawker]

But, as regards to the UN and Iraq, are you aware that the UN passed several economic snctions leading to the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children? He didn't have enough to feed his country, how could the guy afford weapons?

Yes, but he could afford to bribe UN inspectors, and he could afford to build palaces. lol
Source

 

[anomaly]

Yes, but he could afford to bribe UN inspectors, and he could afford to build palaces. lol
Source

He had those palaces long before the sanctions of the mid-90s. He probably had them built some time in the 80s, when his country did have some money. But none of the supposed 'arguments' for invading Iraq holds any water. Give up the charade already!

 

[Squawker]

Check that little "source" in my post out Anomaly.

 

[anomaly]

Check that little "source" in my post out Anomaly.

It doesn't say much about palaces, rather bribes to the UN. You do understand, though, that before UN sanctions, Saddam was as evil as ever, yet 500,000 children were alive, and because of these US supported sanctions, they are dead. I tried to revoke a response out of you as to why you still support the Iraqi invasion. Perhaps the best way to ask is this: If we knew, without a doubt, everything we do now back in '03 (no WMds, although we should have realised that in '03), would you still support the invasion?

 

[Batman]

It doesn't say much about palaces, rather bribes to the UN. You do understand, though, that before UN sanctions, Saddam was as evil as ever, yet 500,000 children were alive, and because of these US supported sanctions, they are dead.

300,000 dead men, women, and children in mass graves - many with bullet holes in the back of their head. Oh, I'm sure Sweet Saddam did that to keep them from starving. And hey, nothing takes your mind off hunger like one of the Saddam's son's rape rooms!

would you still support the invasion?

Yes. You would still support Saddam like Baghdad Bob.

 

[anomaly]

300,000 dead men, women, and children in mass graves - many with bullet holes in the back of their head. Oh, I'm sure Sweet Saddam did that to keep them from starving. And hey, nothing takes your mind off hunger like one of the Saddam's son's rape rooms!

Yes. You would still support Saddam like Baghdad Bob.

Do you know that a lot of these killings took place before the economic sanctions? Do not believe that I am in love with Clinton, that I do not blame him for not taking action when the time was right. I do. The point is that when we invaded, 300,000 were already dead from Saddam, invading and killing an additional 17,000 cannot bring them back. 500,000 dead because of imposed sanctions by the free world, however, are disgusting. No evil dictator killed these 500,000 children, the administration of Clinton can take nearly all blame. And you continue spreading ignorance, you on the right. I support Saddam? I do not support tyranny, in any place. I support the people of every country, and in doing so, cannot support a war that has needlessly taken thousands of lives. The time to act was over, by 2003 it was much too late. And, this whole discussion is meaningless, as it should be clear to every American citizen that Iraq was no humanitarian effort. I await you on the right admitting that Bush did something wrong when he invaded Iraq.

 

[Batman]

Do you know that a lot of these killings took place before the economic sanctions? Do not believe that I am in love with Clinton, that I do not blame him for not taking action when the time was right. I do. The point is that when we invaded, 300,000 were already dead from Saddam, invading and killing an additional 17,000 cannot bring them back. 500,000 dead because of imposed sanctions by the free world, however, are disgusting. No evil dictator killed these 500,000 children, the administration of Clinton can take nearly all blame. I support Saddam? I do not support tyranny, in any place.

You don't support him - yet you have placed the blame for the dead on others but Saddam. You don't blame him for the 300,000 dead in mass graves - you offer "cannot bring them back." You are some humanitarian.

He had those palaces long before the sanctions

He probably had

You get this way when you're overly tired. Remember the last time? Time to go night night.

 

[anomaly]

You don't support him - yet you have placed the blame for the dead on others but Saddam. You don't blame him for the 300,000 dead in mass graves - you offer "cannot bring them back." You are some humanitarian.


You get this way when you're overly tired. Remember the last time? Time to go night night.

Haha! Overly tired? Tell me then, does that make you overly tired all the time? Perhaps hibernation would be a good option for you. But anyways, I clearly blame Saddam for killing people. I'm saying-and you seem to not want to respond to this-that by '03 it was too late for an invasion on the basis of some 'humanitarian' effort. Will you respond this time, or go back to your tactics of changing the subject. It is, however, undeniable that Clinton and his gov't was responsible for 500,000 Iraqi children's deaths. And do you forget that, by the time we invaded, Saddam had slowed or perhaps even stopped his killings completely? Again, your arguments simply carry no weight. And by criticizing me for saying 'you cannot bring them back' are you saying you can? Let's get away fromthis for a minute though. Why do you actually support the war? So far you have given little argument for the cause when faced with my arguments. Saddam killed 300,000 in the mid-90s...so George Bush goes to war with Iraq now? That would be like FDR invading Germany in 1946! It makes no sense, yet you on the right, blinded by patriotism, continue to support this war.

 

[Batman]

Haha! Overly tired? Tell me then, does that make you overly tired all the time?

No.

I'm saying-and you seem to not want to respond to this-that by '03 it was too late for an invasion on the basis of some 'humanitarian' effort. Will you respond this time, or go back to your tactics of changing the subject.

In post #15 you asked:"If we knew, without a doubt, everything we do now back in '03 (no WMds, although we should have realised that in '03), would you still support the invasion?"
I answered in post #16 "Yes." So I'm responding - again.

And do you forget that, by the time we invaded, Saddam had slowed or perhaps even stopped his killings completely?

Perhaps you could provide a source to back that up.

And by criticizing me for saying 'you cannot bring them back' are you saying you can?

No, but we can hold those accountable that are responsible for such atrocities.

Why do you actually support the war?

1.Saddam did not comply with 17 U.N. resolutions over a 12 year time period.
2. Intelligence from the U.S. and other world agencies and governments showed the likelihood of WMD's. (John-John thought so too, but that was a mistake)
3.Bottomline - it was the right thing to do regardless. (My opinion)

Saddam killed 300,000 in the mid-90s...so George Bush goes to war with Iraq now? That would be like FDR invading Germany in 1946! It makes no sense

Japan attacked Pearl Harbor - we declared war on Japan AND Germany. Did that make sense?

 

[anomaly]

No.


In post #15 you asked:"If we knew, without a doubt, everything we do now back in '03 (no WMds, although we should have realised that in '03), would you still support the invasion?"
I answered in post #16 "Yes." So I'm responding - again.

Perhaps you could provide a source to back that up.

No, but we can hold those accountable that are responsible for such atrocities.

1.Saddam did not comply with 17 U.N. resolutions over a 12 year time period.
2. Intelligence from the U.S. and other world agencies and governments showed the likelihood of WMD's. (John-John thought so too, but that was a mistake)
3.Bottomline - it was the right thing to do regardless. (My opinion)

Japan attacked Pearl Harbor - we declared war on Japan AND Germany. Did that make sense?

What is the likelihood that a third world country could come up with an army capable of threatening the most powerful empire ever seen on this earth...and only in ten years! Bush pressured the CIA into providing intelligence against Iraq, then he used that to lie and scare the Americans into believing that Iraq had nukes! Unbelievable! As for the source you seek, you could look it up, or read a book, but I will tell you it instead. It's from a book I read, and unfortunately my uncle has it at his house. I will post the title and author tonight. Now, the last line of your post is once again showing that conservatism is founded upon ignorance. Perhaps you would like to know that FDR never declared on Germany, Germany declared war on the USA. Now, as for your three reasons, number one does nothing to threaten the USA or Europe. The UN was imposing economic sanctions that were slowly whiping Iraqi children off the planet...if the UN killed 500,000 US children, I think we'd ignore their resoltuions as well. And what evidence showed the likelihood of WMDs? Bush pressured the CIA into giving intel about Iraq (in case you're wondering, many have come from the CIA admitting this...also, it was one of the true parts of Farenheit 911). And even if he had WMDs, what evidence do you have that Iraq would actually use them against the USA or our allies? There is none. Iraq was simply no threat to the USA. They weren't even a threat to Israel! It's complete nonsense to believe that Saddam posed a threat to the USA in '03. And the, in your third reason, you ignore any refutation of your faltered 'beliefs', by saying that 'it was the right thing to do regardless'. And why was this? Because the boy king said so? Because the USA said so? Leaders are not omniscient, and they are not always right. The real reason we invaded was to a. get more oil more cheaply b. protect US business interests...there was talk of Saddam trying to change his trade currency to Euros c. To get revenge on the man who tried to kill W's daddy.

 

[Batman]

You are getting into the blah blah blah phase. I'll hit this and end it:

Now, the last line of your post is once again showing that conservatism is founded upon ignorance. Perhaps you would like to know that FDR never declared on Germany, Germany declared war on the USA.

Yes, Germany did delare war on us, but in order for the U.S. Congress to authorize funding for the war effort - a state of war was DECLARED with Germany. As stated below:

Declaring that a state of war exists between the Government of Germany and the government and the people of the United States and making provision to prosecute the same.

Whereas the Government of Germany has formally declared war against the government and the people of the United States of America:

Therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that the state of war between the United States and the Government of Germany which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the government to carry on war against the Government of Germany; and to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.

Don't talk to me about ignorance little guy when it's staring you in the face every time you see a mirror.

 

[anomaly]

You are getting into the blah blah blah phase. I'll hit this and end it:


Yes, Germany did delare war on us, but in order for the U.S. Congress to authorize funding for the war effort - a state of war was DECLARED with Germany. As stated below:


Don't talk to me about ignorance little guy when it's staring you in the face every time you see a mirror.

So now you accept that Germany delcared war on us? And you would have done nothing? When, at that time, the most powerful army in the world declares war on you, you don't sit around and do nothing. Ignorant fool, this 'little guy' sees ignorance only when I read your posts. They grow more fascinating with every new one. The mind of a conservative is a scary thing. Perhaps you would like to defend your 3rd 'reason' for supporting the war in Iraq now. It was 'the right thing regardless'?!

 

[Batman]

So now you accept that Germany delcared war on us?

Show me where I said they didn't.

 

[anomaly]

Show me where I said they didn't.

"we declared war on Japan AND Germany" No, we didn't. We may have voted to answer the Germans declaration, but we didn't declare war on Germany. Can we get back on topic now? Could you explain your reason #3?