Hussein Was Sure Of Own Survival

[jimnyc]

>> Have these chemicals been accounted for to date?<<
They were destroyed by Hussein while the inspectors were absent. It gave him the option of claiming he both had and didn't have the capability. He also felt he could develop an active bio or chem program fast enough to defend himself from the Iranians or Syrians. At least, this is what the released members of his administration are claiming.

Please point me in the direction of the article that has his former administration acknowledging that these chemicals were destroyed. Not WMD in general, but the unaccounted for chemicals.

And if this is found to be true, why didn't anyone give up this information when asked hundreds of times by the UN and inspectors? Hiding chemicals that may or may not exist is a surely a good way to avoid war.

 

[jimnyc]

The weeklystandard prints this kind of stuff all the time.

It's not just the weeklystandard. Go to yahoo and type in "Iraq Al Qaeda connection", you'll find plenty of reading! There are plenty of conspiracy sites out there that try to eliminate this connection, but you'll see the solid articles are all from reputable sights. I just chose that one as it was high on the list and quite extensive.

 

[eric]

Yes Bry, we have a large difference of opinion on these matters, but this is not the thread to debate it. I will start a new thread in General USA chat concerning this matter very soon.

 

[UVoted4GoreLOL]

Bry:

Appreciate the welcome to the board ~ I found it by accident : )

UCLA good enough for you?

http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/iraqgermsusfrance.html

Just remember, I have a quarter in my left pocket or do I? Just because you can't see it does not mean it is not there.

We have been attacked on our own soil as well as abroad several times in the past 20 years ~ you just never hear the media bring it up:

1982: Lebanon: 242 killed via truck bomb @ a Marines Barracks

1991: US Armed Forces Barracks in Riyhadd Saudia Arabia

1993: First WTC Bombing (first on US soil)

1996/97: bin Laden issues a fatwa declaring jihad against the US

1997: US Emabassies in Kenya & Tanzania

1998: Somalia ~ does everyone still think that we were actually fighting locals? At the very least, the tribal warlords were supplied via al Qaeda

1998(?): Kobar Towers in Saudia Arabia

2000: USS Cole Bombing in Yemen (it was a secondary target)

2001: WTC attack #2

2003: After the major ground offensive in Iraq we are now battling non-regulars ~ the borders are wide open and they are bringing their jihad to us.

See how the attacks slowly picked up after bin Laden's fatwa? On top of all of this are several plans to attack us at home, as well as abroad that were foiled.

I fought in the first Gulf War & thanks to the wonderful UN, we were not allowed to remove Saddam from power. We did not make that mistake this time. If we bail out of Iraq now (which I do not believe we will), it will be just like Somalia all over again ~ after Somalia the al-Qaeda force has been rumored to have tripled; after all, we are supposed to be the great Satan.

A good book for everyone to pick up is entitled "The Cell". This gives a very clear and concise description of what we are up against and why we should not bail from Iraq.

 

[jimnyc]

UVoted4GoreLOL, let me welcome you to the board as well.

It'll be nice to have the perspective of another military veteran in here.

 

[eric]

UVoted4GoreLOL,

Welcome to the board !

I would like to take this opportunity to say thank you for your service to our country.

 

[Lefty Wilbury]

the two embassy bombing in lebanon in the 80's amoung other needed to be added to that list. also those ARE on american soil. all us embassy sit on us soil techically.

as far as the iraq intelligence thing nobody hyped anything. Public Law 105-235 from 1998 lays out things saddam did as well as the iraq liberation act of 1998(PL 105-338) and this little classic clips from clinton speeches:

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9802/17/iraq.clinton/

Hussein, said the president, "threatens the security of all the rest of us."

Clinton said Hussein and the Iraqi leadership had repeatedly lied to the United Nations about the country's weaponry.

"It is obvious that there is an attempt here based on the whole history of this (weapons inspections) operation since 1991 to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them and the feedstock necessary to produce them," Clinton said.

The president said that after the Gulf War ended in 1991, Iraq admitted having a massive offensive biological warfare capability, including:

5,000 gallons of Botulinum (causing Botulism)
2,000 gallons of Anthrax
25 biological-filled Scud warheads
157 aerial bombs


amoung others. and for the record they have found Botulism in iraq.

 

[UVoted4GoreLOL]

Here is a C&P pertaining to WMD's from another site that I visit, thought you all would get a kick out of this:

Subject: Selective Democratic memory

Here are some interesting quotes:

Re-evaluating Weapons of Mass Destruction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So now the Democrats say President Bush lied, that
there were never any WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, and he took us to war
for his oil buddies??? Right! And, I've got a prime piece of ocean-front property in Phoenix, AZ for sale.

 

[jimnyc]

and for the record they have found Botulism in iraq.

How can that be? Dijetlo said even the top Iraqi's interviewed said all the chemicals were destroyed before the war even began.

Like I said previously, unaccounted for means they may or may not exist. Considering the history, I don't think it's absurd to assume that he had them when the invasion started. Maybe a "stockpile" hasn't been found, but just how much of botulism or anthrax or VX would need to be released to cause widespread death?

 

[janeeng]

Good posting Gore - yes, welcome to board, and I too would like to thank you for serving for our Country!!!!!!! it's good to see we have another person here on OUR side!!!!!

 

[dijetlo]

>>Please point me in the direction of the article that has his former administration acknowledging that these chemicals were destroyed. Not WMD in general, but the unaccounted for chemicals.<<
The originating article for the thread confirms he had no WMD program. He did apparently dispose of the chemical precursers, though I must admit I don't know where.
>>And if this is found to be true, why didn't anyone give up this information when asked hundreds of times by the UN and inspectors?<<
He won the war with Iran largely through the use of Chem, he didn't want Iran or Syria to beleive he had truly given up the ability to manufacture them. It also gave him, in the eyes of a lot of anti-west agitators, the mantle of resisting the control of the US government.
>>Hiding chemicals that may or may not exist is a surely a good way to avoid war. <<
He made that claim on the eve of the war, and offered to let the inspectors back in. We wouldn't postpone hostilities.
>> but you'll see the solid articles are all from reputable sights<<
But no further evidence? The CIAs' hasn't been right about anything in Iraq (unless you think bush lied about what they told him) why do you feel a CIA document would be "compelling" evidence of this connection without further documentation?
>> Go to yahoo and type in "Iraq Al Qaeda connection", you'll find plenty of reading! <<
I google, (though I think yahooing can be fun, as long as you wash your hancds when you're through) I found a lot of articles that attack he claim, many siting sources in the Intell community

This one from the Washington Post
>>The National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, which represented the consensus of the U.S. intelligence community, contained cautionary language about Iraq's connections with al Qaeda and warnings about the reliability of conflicting reports by Iraqi defectors and captured al Qaeda members about the ties, the sources said. <<
Keep in mind, these arguments were used to lay the groundwork for the war, don't you think a high level of certainty would be more appropriate?

 

[jimnyc]

The originating article for the thread confirms he had no WMD program. He did apparently dispose of the chemical precursers, though I must admit I don't know where.

The original article confirms only that nothing has been found as of yet, and makes no reference specifically to the chemicals that were once accounted for and then disappeared. It was easily documented to begin with, it should be just as easy to show they were destroyed. One one side we have documented proof that they had the chemicals and now we have only hearsay as to whether or not they still exist. I say we stick with the documentation until further 'proof' comes along.

He won the war with Iran largely through the use of Chem, he didn't want Iran or Syria to beleive he had truly given up the ability to manufacture them. It also gave him, in the eyes of a lot of anti-west agitators, the mantle of resisting the control of the US government.

Documentation showed they had them. They can play all the games they like, but it's probably not appropriate to do so when war is on the horizon. He 'might' have bluffed, but it didn't work. Saying that he used them previously against other aggressors only solidifies the importance of knowing whether or not they were destroyed. They failed to produce anything so we had no alternative but to use other means to be assured he wouldn't use them.

He made that claim on the eve of the war, and offered to let the inspectors back in. We wouldn't postpone hostilities.

A little too late, his cat and mouse games were getting a little tiresome.

I google, (though I think yahooing can be fun, as long as you wash your hancds when you're through) I found a lot of articles that attack he claim, many siting sources in the Intell community

Intel, defected Iraqi's, various other countries... Where there is smoke there is most likely fire.

 

[dijetlo]

hey Wilbury, Gore thanks for the posts.(and welcome to the board!!!)
>>as far as the iraq intelligence thing nobody hyped anything.<<
OK, then where are the WMDs' ? If we were told they were there, and what we were told wasn't hype, just where are they hiding...
>>5,000 gallons of Botulinum (causing Botulism)
2,000 gallons of Anthrax
25 biological-filled Scud warheads
157 aerial bombs <<
'cause we're been all over that country for the last 7 months and we've found nothing.

>>and for the record they have found Botulism in iraq. <<
Botulism occurs naturaly, a jug of bad milk is rife with it. Botulinum is an anaerobic bacteria that inhabits soil (the first step of a weaponization program would be to convert botulism to botulinum.)Kayes' problem is what he found was an old can of cool whip (botulism), not a weapons program. (that's how dijetlo can say that Jimmy)
As far as the Clinton bashing, you're probably going to have to find someone else to defend him (sorry). I never voted for him, never thought he could be trusted. It seemed that little he ever said turned out to be true, kind of like GWB.

 

[dijetlo]

>> On one side we have documented proof that they had the chemicals (in 1991?) and now we have only hearsay as to whether or not they still exist...I say we stick with the documentation until further 'proof' comes along.<<

Hey jim, we've been searching that country for quite a while now and have found nothing. Doesn't that constitute proof?
Example: Cop: "I saw him put the drugs behind the loose brick in the wall."
Lawyer: " Did you look behind the loose brick?"
Cop: "Yes"
Lawyer: "Did you find the drugs?"
Cop: "No"
The trial would end there, don't you think? Once you take possession of the country, being able to produce the cause for your invasion is kind of important. Otherwise the rest of the world gets the opinion that your an opportunistic imperialist who will fabricate whatever rational it deems appropriate to take control of any nation it desires (which could explain or EU poll ranking, tied for second on the "dangerous nation" list behind Israel.)

>>They failed to produce anything so we had no alternative but to use other means to be assured he wouldn't use them.<<
If we are correct that he posed a threat to the US. If he didn't, than we look like fools. Violent, dangerous fools.
Has anything been found in Iraq that could be used to attack the US. I'll even let you claim the highly dubious "Al-Queda" connection for purposes of this argument. What did he have that was more dangerous than high explosive? What threat?

>> his cat and mouse games were getting a little tiresome.<<
Not as tiresome as the occupation

>>Intel, defected Iraqi's, various other countries<<
Paint a conflicting picture.

>>Where there is smoke there is most likely fire.<<
Some see smoke, some see fog. I think even you would admit, based on pre-war claims the administration made about Iraq’s capabilities, they were looking at fog.

 

[spillmind]

janneng:

our side?

why the constant desire to strive for segregation? i thought we were all on the same 'team'?

 

[spillmind]

i remember things that bush said in a speech that i linked in one of my first posts on this board:

'In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq's military industries defected. It was then that the regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and is capable of killing millions.

We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, and VX nerve gas. Saddam Hussein also has experience in using chemical weapons. He has ordered chemical attacks on Iran, and on more than forty villages in his own country. These actions killed or injured at least 20,000 people, more than six times the number of people who died in the attacks of September 11. '

and i maintain that the burden of proof has always been on the accusers, and not defending something that isn't there. bushies always try to turn this one around, when the fact of the matter is, they cannot prove anything, really.

 

[jimnyc]

Hey jim, we've been searching that country for quite a while now and have found nothing. Doesn't that constitute proof?

It just means nothing has been located. It's quite possible the stuff is buried and will never be found. Shit, thats a HUGE country, I can hide stuff in my house and personally guarantee that you would never find it! And lastly, THE CHEMICALS WERE DOCUMENTED, and now they are missing, the burden of proof lies with Iraq!!! See previous resolutions, the treaties required this proof.

 

[Lefty Wilbury]

the found vials of Botulism (see pic below) hidden in a scientist home who said they were for a weapons program.that not excluding the 600,000 tons of muntions we have in our possession that HAVE NOT been examined. and iraq is a big country. we still have been able to determine the fate of
Lt. Cmdr. Speicher even though we control the country we still don't know either way what happend to him.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by spillmind
and i maintain that the burden of proof has always been on the accusers, and not defending something that isn't there. bushies always try to turn this one around, when the fact of the matter is, they cannot prove anything, really.

Wasn't there? Iraq themselves were involved in the documentation of the chemicals. The resolutions called for them to completely destroy them. They couldn't provide the chemicals nor could they provide proof they destroyed them. Sorry, even the UN thought the burden of proof was on Iraq.

The only thing that can be proven at this point is that they had them. There is no proof of anything since 1998 and Iraq either refused to come clean or lied. But it is a FACT that they had them.

 

[spillmind]

the dispute is NOT if they ever had them!



is this not obvious? the big difference is that you are in that token few that still cling to the hope that they are buried in iraq somewhere even our own government has basically called off the search!

don't give me these scraps of Botulism mr. lefty heckler posted. that looks like enough to kill a horse! (or two) ok, maybe a hundred after a week or so

let's see where this massive stockpile bush was plugging from my other post:

'...It was then that the regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and is capable of killing millions.

We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, and VX nerve gas.....'

let's see it, man! i really wonder how, if saddam had his back to the wall, or the opportunity to use them against the US troops, why didn't he?

i could swear i've been over this at least a couple times on this board.