Forum Home | Login

Wingman412

Join Date 09/2004

Proof of WMDs

Since fuzzyvet fears me enough to block me from his thread, I will have to post the proof that he demands to have and denies exists in this thread.
Fuzzyhead writes:

...there must have been WMD. But there weren't....

Yeah - we have heard this dribble before. OK here we go...

First, I have to ask - Since the whole world recognizes Husseins use of WMD against his own people, are we left to assume that he used every drop of it at hat time and has never produced or secured any more? No one believed that then and no one should believe it now.

Anyway - here are your details:

This page from the CIA detailing

-Key Judgements: Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs
-Discussion: Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs
-UN Security Council Resolutions and Provisions
for Inspections and Monitoring: Theory and Practice
-Nuclear Weapons Program
-Chemical Warfare Programs
-Biological Warfare Program
-Ballistic Missile Program
-Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Program and Other Aircraft
-Procurement in Support of WMD Programs

Link= Link

This site has pictures of WMD being used in Iraq by Hussein on his own people. It has great text but the pictures make it not for the feint of heart: Link

In Iraq's own report to the UN on their weapons, they admit to having "8,500 liters of anthrax" and a 'growth media he imported to grow more that can produce 25,000 liters' Where is it?

Here is a quote from a real Hussein insider:

In the two decades before the Gulf War, I played a role in Iraq's efforts to acquire major technologies from friendly states. In 1974, I headed an Iraqi delegation to France to purchase a nuclear reactor. It was a 40-megawatt research reactor that our sources in the IAEA told us should cost no more than $50 million. But the French deal ended up costing Baghdad more than $200 million. The French-controlled Habbania Resort project cost Baghdad a whopping $750 million, and with the same huge profit margin. With these kinds of deals coming their way, is it any surprise that the French are so desperate to save Saddam's regime?

Germany was the hub of Iraq's military purchases in the 1980s. Our commercial attaché, Ali Abdul Mutalib, was allocated billions of dollars to spend each year on German military industry imports. These imports included many proscribed technologies with the German government looking the other way. In 1989, German engineer Karl Schaab sold us classified technology to build and operate the centrifuges we needed for our uranium-enrichment program. German authorities have since found Mr. Schaab guilty of selling nuclear secrets, but because the technology was considered "dual use" he was fined only $32,000 and given five years probation.

Meanwhile, other German firms have provided Iraq with the technology it needs to make missile parts. Mr. Blix's recent finding that Iraq is trying to enlarge the diameter of its missiles to a size capable of delivering nuclear weapons would not be feasible without this technology transfer.

Russia has long been a major supplier of conventional armaments to Iraq--yet again at exorbitant prices. Even the Kalashnikov rifles used by the Iraqi forces are sold to Iraq at several times the price of comparable guns sold by other suppliers.

Saddam's policy of squandering Iraq's resources by paying outrageous prices to friendly states seems to be paying off. The irresponsibility and lack of morality these states are displaying in trying to keep the world's worst butcher in power is perhaps indicative of a new world order. It is a world of winks and nods to emerging rogue states--for a price. It remains for the U.S. and its allies to institute an opposing order in which no price is high enough for dictators like Saddam to thrive.

Mr. Hamza, a former director of Iraq's nuclear-weapons program, is the co-author of "Saddam's Bombmaker: The Terrifying Inside Story of the Iraqi Nuclear and Biological Weapons Agenda" (Scribner, 2000).

And some more discoveries by US forces:

Iraqi Nuke Complex
Friday, April 11, 2003

BAGHDAD, Iraq — U.S. Marines may have found weapons-grade plutonium in a massive underground facility discovered beneath Iraq's Al Tuwaitha nuclear complex, Fox News confirmed Friday.

Coalition forces are investigating a stash of radioactive material found at the site south of Baghdad, an embedded reporter, Carl Prine of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, first told Fox News on Thursday.

...

The discovery of the underground labyrinth of labs and warehouses was unexpected, Fox News has confirmed, and forces in the area are testing a variety of things to best determine the significance of the find.

So far, Marine nuclear and intelligence experts have found 14 buildings that have high levels of radiation, Prine reported Thursday.

His report noted that some of the tests have found nuclear residue too deadly for human contact.

The Marine radiation detectors go "off the charts" a few hundred meters outside the nuclear compound, where locals say "missile water" is stored in enormous caverns, reported Prine, who is embedded with the U.S. 1st Marine Division.

"It's amazing," Chief Warrant Officer Darrin Flick, the battalion's nuclear, biological and chemical warfare specialist told the newspaper. "I went to the off-site storage buildings, and the rad detector went off the charts. Then I opened the steel door, and there were all these drums, many, many drums, of highly radioactive material."

Former Iraqi scientist Gazi George told Fox News Friday that the material "definitely" could have been planned for use in nuclear weapons or dirty bombs.

"The high levels of radiation suggest it's a high-level nuclear waste that was stored underground, trying to hide it for the process of repurposing it for the future … or just to make dirty bombs out of the material that's down there," George said.

"If the material has not been disclosed by Iraqis to the United Nations …[then] definitely this material was hidden there to use it as a source for extracting plutonium chemically and using it in dirty bombs.

"Saddam always tried to hide ... uranium or other nuclear fuels so we could use them in the future for weapons of mass destruction."

George said it's important the coalition find Iraqi scientists who know about these weapons so they can hunt down the harmful material and destroy it.

"I think this demonstrates the failure of the U.N. weapons inspections and demonstrates that our guys are going to find the weapons of mass destruction."

This underground discovery could still test to be perfectly legitimate and offer no proof of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. The CIA encouraged international inspectors in the fall of 2002 to probe Al Tuwaitha for weapons of mass destruction, and the inspectors came away empty-handed.

"They went through that site multiple times, but did they go underground? I never heard anything about that," physicist David Albright, a former IAEA Action Team inspector in Iraq from 1992 to 1997, told the Tribune-Review.

"The Marines should be particularly careful because of those high readings," he told the paper. "Three hours at levels like that and people begin to vomit. That leads me to wonder, if the readings are accurate, whether radioactive material was deliberately left there to expose people to dangerous levels.

"You couldn't do scientific work in levels like that. You would die."

Capt. John Seegar, a combat engineer commander from Houston, is currently running the operation in Al Tuwaitha. "I've never seen anything like it, ever," he told the Tribune-Review. "How did the world miss all of this? Why couldn't they see what was happening here?"

The Army Times reported that troops from the 326th Engineer Battalion and chemical specialists on Wednesday found steel containers full of $1 million of sophisticated lab equipment near the Karbala Chemical Company.

The equipment included a machine used to analyze chemical compounds and a 750-pound centrifugal pump that was made in Finland, shipped to a Jordan company and ended up in Iraq. One bin was filled with documents on Baath Party letterhead.

Chemical protective mask filters were on the ground and hand grenades and loose ammunition were also in the facility.

The Mobile Exploitation Team -- made up of civilians and military chemical experts -- went to the scene Thursday and closed off the area.

"This is significant," Army Chief Warrant Officer 2 Richard Gonzales, head of the team, told the Army Times. "We would not be here if it was inconsequential."

U.N. weapons inspectors spent five hours at an adjacent munitions factory on Feb. 23.

The Karbala Chemical Plant supposedly was bombed during the first Gulf War, but there are signs that an active lab there was recently used.

And here is an article I wish I was elloquent enugh to have written myself :
Proof Positive...
Mark Alexander (archive)

May 21, 2004

As good logicians are wont to note, the existence of a thing is indisputable proof of its possibility. That said, a whole lot of people have a whole lot of 'splaining to do about their categorical claims that deposed Iraqi tyrant Saddam Hussein didn't have weapons of mass destruction and didn't collude with Jihadi terrorists. Not that we expect them to 'fess up for being wrong -- being anti-American means never having to say you're sorry.

For, lo, we now have demonstrable evidence of Jihadi terrorists and WMD in Iraq. We now have confirmation of the very confluence that President Bush cited a half year before hostilities commenced as the "gravest danger in the war on terror" -- which formed the rationale for taking the war with Jihadistan into Iraq. A 155-millimeter howitzer shell, part of an improvised explosive device, exploded Saturday in Iraq. The IED contained 3 to 4 liters of sarin gas, a deadly nerve agent; two U.S. soldiers were exposed while attempting to disarm the bomb and were treated. An IED discovered a couple of weeks ago was confirmed to contain mustard gas. A "perfume factory" also recently exploded, apparently rigged to self-destruct around unauthorized entrants. Other "dual use" chemicals have been uncovered suspiciously near military facilities -- calling into serious question whether these were dedicated to peaceful civilian purposes only.

Of course, these small quantities of WMD constitute only what Saddam's minions failed to hide or export to Syria prior to the Allied invasion. In October 2002, the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraqi WMD estimated that Saddam had from 100 to 500 metric tons of chemical warfare agents.

Our staff analysts remain convinced that unknown quantities of chemical and biological WMD, and components of Saddam's nuclear WMD, were spirited out of Iraq well in advance of the anticipated Allied invasion. This belief is consistent with our analysis in October of 2002 that the UN Security Council's foot-dragging provided a large window for Saddam to export some of his biological and nuclear WMD. At that time, this column reported that it would be unlikely Allied Forces would discover Iraq's WMD stores in Iraq, noting, "There are substantial intelligence estimates that Iraq shipped some or all of its biological stockpiles and nuclear WMD components through Syria to Lebanon's heavily fortified Bekaa Valley."

Indeed, as reported here three weeks ago, some of the chemical WMD discovered during the thwarting of a planned al-Qa'ida attack in Jordan appear to have come from Syria. But given that Syria does not possess the technology to produce such chemicals, one can reasonably conclude (unless you are the Demo-nominee for president) that this cache was compliments of Iraq, by way of Syria.

So, that mindless Left-mantra, "Saddam didn't have WMD," has, again, been thoroughly discredited. More to the point, though, if these WMD escaped detection and were used against coalition troops, isn't it very likely there are more?

And last week the world witnessed a masked man, self-identified in a videotape and now confirmed to be al-Qa'ida terror chief Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, butchering an American citizen (see the article "Scripting the execution of Nicholas Berg"). This Jihadi leader -- in Iraq -- intended the propaganda snuff film to rally potential allies to jihad, to cow Iraqi fence-sitters into deeper neutrality, and to demoralize those opposing Jihadi objectives. Like the WMD discovered this week, al-Zarqawi was in Iraq long before coalition forces launched Operation Iraqi Freedom.

In his State of the Union Address on September 28, 2003, the President identified "the gravest danger facing America and the world" as "outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons" and "could also give or sell those weapons to terrorist allies, who would use them without the least hesitation."

President Bush made the case: "Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack. ... Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and abets terrorists, including members of al-Qa'ida. Secretly, without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own."

And as for another Left-chant, "The threat wasn't imminent," the President explicitly argued that intelligence couldn't guarantee such finely calibrated assessments: "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late."

This week Lt. Gen. Patrick Hughes (Ret.), now with the Department of Homeland Security, offered the analysis that the Jihadis would prefer to attack here within the U.S. using chemical or biological weapons, or possibly a "dirty bomb" laced with nuclear contaminants. He specifically mentioned anthrax, as it was successfully used just after the 9/11 assaults, and ricin, planned for use by terror suspects picked up in other locales.

As far as apologies owed, you may recall the screed mere days ago of Los Angeles Times Editor John Carroll, who disdainfully dismissed non-Leftmedia types as "pseudo-journalists." Carroll stated, "You may be familiar with a study published last October on the public misconceptions about the war in Iraq. One of those misconceptions was that Saddam's weapons of mass destruction had been found. Another was that links had been proven between Iraq and al-Qa'ida."

For Mr. Carroll's edification: When WMD explode, they most definitely become found. And when al-Qa'ida videotape themselves in Iraq claiming to be at the essential battleground, they most definitely prove a link.

3 great quotes on the topic - I stumbled accross them and wanted to share:

"You would have thought that the discovery of an actual weapon of mass destruction in Iraq would be big news, especially since it was aimed at American soldiers. But apparently not in the eyes of most U.S. newspaper editors and network television producers, who chose largely to ignore one of the major stories coming out of Iraq this week."
--Linda Chavez

On cross-examination...

"In discrediting the war, the Democrats have pushed the idea that neither dangerous weapons nor terrorist networks existed in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. How do they explain that terrorists Hussein harbored are beheading American civilians and trying to kill American soldiers with poisons he spread?"
--George Neumayr

Open query...

"But I do wonder, did they [conservatives now going weak in the knees over Iraq] ever really think America could transform the Middle East with fewer than 750 American deaths? Did they really think the elites in the chattering classes would sit back passively and be proven wrong again by George Bush, just like they were proven wrong by Ronald Reagan in the Cold War? And did they really think America could bring freedom to the most tyrannical country in the world on the cheap? I hope not, because this war is not about saving American lives or Iraqi lives overseas. This war on terrorism is about saving American lives at home in this war on terror. We've got to win this war, liberate Iraq from terror, and make the Middle East and the world unsafe for terrorists wherever they may roam."
--Joe Scarborough

And if you prefer ultra liberal - here is one from NPR Link

Yes, some of this stuff makes the news. But many will not believe because they....rather, WE are bombarded with thos quote: There are no WMDs in Iraq.
The reason is because they say so. As has been proven in the past, if you just say the same lie over and over and get enough people doing it, then it becomes the truth. Not that it matters to so many who just want something to hang thier hats on. Just one point that they can cling to and not let go of. It is a kind of denial.

Look at the pictures. There is your proof.

Oh there is no doubt that people will try to turn this all around on me, try to poke holes in one or 2 points, call me names... yeah - I expect it.
If you are in doubt just check the pictures and ask yourself: After gassing all these people and putting thousands into mass graves with them, did Hussein just make the WMDs and corresponding manufacturing programs for WMDs just vannish from existence?

A bit on mass graves, "Over 250 sites have been reported, of which approximately 40 have been confirmed to date. Over one million Iraqis are believed to be missing in Iraq as a result of executions, wars and defections, of whom hundreds of thousands are thought to be in mass graves." from The Coalition Provisional Authority and the interim Iraqi Human Rights Ministry.

There are multiple types of physical evidence cited above as well as common sense and relevant testimonials. Yes one person can say, "There are none because I have not seen them." OK but that does not mean they are not there. They are there and we find more all the time.

Oh and by the way, don't look for a Bin Laden capture for your October Surprise - it will be more WMD stockpiles. I'd bet money on it.
Republicans are good at letting their opponents dig themselves a deep hole and wed themselves to an idea right before the rug is pulled out from under them. The clamour, "No WMDs" will be met with a bunch of video footage showing WMDs. There is already enough film out there to put together a nice Moore-esque montage but I think it will come in the form of new discoveries. This issue will be hit hard and fast just a few weeks before election day.

politics

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

Iraqi Nuke Complex
Friday, April 11, 2003

Wow. Over a year ago. I remember this one. I was castigated at the time to apologize for ever questioning the WMD assertion. Problem is, this turned out not to be. Like the mobile labs and the tubes and all the other false alarms, it turned out to be just that -- a false alarm. And not one person who castigated me apologize -- they just grumbled and muttered, "they'll turn up, you wait and see!" Still waiting. Still not seeing.

Look, I'm not going to go point by point here. No one said Husseain never had WMD -- they said he destroyed them in compliance with UN resolutions. Remember, he produced that report showing all the disbanded programs and destroyed weapons. Oh it wasn't enough to satisfy us. That was that little no win situation we put him in where he either had to prove he'd destroyed his WMD (thereby proving he'd had them) or suffer the consequences of having them because we said so.

Yes, he gassed people. Yes, it was terrible. Yes, something should have been done about that at the time. Where was the pre-emptive logic when that was going down? Who was President during that attrocity? Why didn't he DO something. Oh yeah...oops.

The only question that pertains now is did he have them in 2001/2? Are we certain that the chemical agents now occasionally showing up there are his? Because I'm sure I've heard plenty about the porous borders of Iraq and the influx of insurgents come to join the holy war against the infidel invaders (and then, presumably, each other).

And the real question is this: If there really were any solid evidence that he had WMD now (er, in 2002), don't you think the GOP/Bush camp would be telling us (ad nauseum)? President Bush has abandoned the WMD argument in favor of potential programs to restart his WMD development (or some such jargon) and bringing freedom to the people of Iraq. The WMD argument was used not to justify the war but to hasten it. I now wonder if it wasn't a race against the clock to get in there before he could finish his dismantling program -- a dismantling program we had insisted he pursue.

Your clinging to this argument along with your conspiratorial "they say so" reeks of desperation. Bush and his party are in power in congress and in the White House. Who is this "they" that fills us with such repeated misinformation. Do you really think the "liberal media" has the power to squelch such information? Because if you do, that's just sad, man...

But don't waste your money on this bet of yours. Tell us what you'll do if it turns out you're wrong, if it turns out no videos of current Iraqi WMD stockpiles turn up before the election. Because I think it would only be fair for you to do something like post a picture of yourself eating crow or singing "I'm a Little Tea Pot" (with appropriate gestures) in your underwear if you are wrong. C'mon, Wingman, by your logic it's gotta happen soon -- just 41 days left 'til the election. Whether I get to gloat in the end or end up posting some similarly embarassing picture of myself, it will be worth it.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I'm afraid I must agree with the previous poster.

No one disagrees that Saddam had WMD. The important question is did he have them in October 2002 when article 1441 was enacted? The documents he gave the the UN said no. Was this a lie?

To date I have seen NO proof that this was a lie.

Paul.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Reply #2 By: Solitair - 9/23/2004 7:54:06 AM
I'm afraid I must agree with the previous poster.

No one disagrees that Saddam had WMD. The important question is did he have them in October 2002 when article 1441 was enacted? The documents he gave the the UN said no. Was this a lie?

To date I have seen NO proof that this was a lie.

Paul.

None huh??? You think that 155 mm howitzer shell with *SARIN* gas appeared out of no where? And that was *after* Oct 2002!

Successfully updated karma reason!

None huh??? You think that 155 mm howitzer shell with *SARIN* gas appeared out of no where? And that was *after* Oct 2002!

Sarin gas is only used on bugs as an insecticide don't you know that?

(Just kidding)

-GX

Successfully updated karma reason!

Look... as great and as detail as your post.... extreme liberal won't listen to a word you say.

Successfully updated karma reason!

None huh??? You think that 155 mm howitzer shell with *SARIN* gas appeared out of no where? And that was *after* Oct 2002!

I'd like to add that the 155mm arty shell was one of 550 listed as "destroyed" by the former regime/UN inspections....another point I'd add is it contained cyclosarin which is far more deadly....

Also...coalition forces did uncover several long range missles with binary dispersement warheads still attached (another violation of UN resolutions..but whos counting)

Another funny thing is the large amount of pre-cursor chemical agents found not in some normal storage site but among the large military ammo dumps in highly camoflauged areas....hmmm maybe Saddam was preparing for a war on insects...

I've never held that the regime had a large stockpile with a giant neon arrow pointing to the secret cache (funny how the critics usually come off as expecting such a thing)...it is conceivable that it did have some level of wmd's...most likely chem/bio....the nuclear issue to me is somewhat in between....while I dont think he had any weapons grade fissionable material...I do believe he (Saddam) was actively seeking it....although the tons of low-grade radioactive material seized in Iraq by the coalition and shiped to the states for safe keeping is more than enough material to create a "dirty" bomb...

One last point which is sometimes glossed over is the fact that the regime had aquired over 1 million+ vials of atrophene shortly before the war began and acorss the country...these as well as chem/bio suits as well as gas masks were found among their ammo dumps (opps...I mean schools/hospitals/mosques)

Couchman.....
......End Trans

Successfully updated karma reason!

Wow, funny! I happend to find this thread. I don't usually come to forum.

I don't fear you.
I don't just want to treat trolls as I don't have much time enough to play with them.

Go for it! Be barking outside the door! I'm so busy unlike you, kid. Bye!

Successfully updated karma reason!

Should you fear?

What is fear to you?

How come you MUST resort to name-calling to make a point?

Is by dirtying or sullying a person's name by using expletives as 'faggot', 'child', 'small prick', ad nauseam appropriate in an argument for or against in a proper debate?

Would Jesus do what you do?

Why can you not have a proper debate without resorting to name-calling or seeing another's point of view?

Do you lack the honor and integrity to respond in a proper argument or is name-calling what Christianity tells you to do to others, including those who are not of your belief (as I am)?

Or have you just not grown up into an adult mindset of acting and being an adult even when it comes to a conversation?

Did you know your name is blacklisted from my articles, and that I am sure Wingman after seeing you not contribute to an argument properly or how to behave in a debate, may decide to blacklist you too?

Don't make friends easily, do you?

What is the source of your frustration, is it something that is lacking from your personal life or is it a deep psychological problem?

- GX
"I have no answers to your questions, but I can question your demands." - Motto Inspired by Laibach's WAT

Successfully updated karma reason!

The only question that pertains now is did he have them in 2001/2?

I have mentioned this in other threads and it keeps getting ignored, or at least noone's commenting on it. I have spoken with soldiers who were deployed to Kuwait right after 9/11. When they arrived in Kuwait, Sadaam had his army lined up along the border ready to roll in. Once our troops got there, the Iraqis retreated, but gases were released (I'm not sure what methods of disbursement were used), and many of the troops exposed have been suffering symptoms/illnesses similar to those who were involved in the Gulf War a decade ago. I think that pretty much answers a couple of questions. Yes, Sadaam had chemical weapons in 2001. And even if he was not directly involved in 9/11, he was sure as hell willing to take advantage of it!

Successfully updated karma reason!

LadyCleve, that is some REAL good need to know information, thanks for the information.

- GX
"I have no answers to your questions, but I can question your demands." - Motto Inspired by Laibach's WAT

Successfully updated karma reason!

2001 is not 2002. Also most of the gulf war syndrome issues are blamed on the innoculations provided by the US and UK governments and not due to any release of gases.

1 single shell that did contain chemical weapons is NOT a legal arguement that Saddam violated 1441. Look at the incident. someone actually tried to use the explosive part of the shell as a bomb, totally unaware of the serious power of the shell if they had mixed the components. No this shell was a left over sheel from the previous Iran/Iraq war that had probably been misfired and dumped somewhere. Further shells from a similar batch would however be important.

Pre-cursor chemicals are not WMD. Many of them have perfectly acceptable uses, such as the mobile chemical laboratories which turned out to not be that at all. Many fertilisers are classified as pre-cursor chemicals. Pre-cursor chemicals beside a processing plant capable of turning them into WMD however would be considered important. No such find has yet been revealed though.

Again I'll iterate that there is no doubt Saddam had WMD. Just zero proof he had any in 2002/2003.

Paul.

The regime DID have a large stock pile with a neon arrow. That's the problem. Back in the 80's and early 90's such a stockpile DID exist and people assummed it must still exist. It's not that easy to hide some of these chemicals, while others do actually degrade fairly rapidly. It looks like Saddam actually used up most of his stockpiles in the Iran war and on attrocities on his own people. The rest were destroyed by weapon inspectors, 1998 bombing (thanks to info from weapon inspectors) and degradation.

As for gas masks, chemical suits and atrophene, since when did these get classified as WMD? Saddam has had these for decades. And these 1 million vials, are you saying they were bought just before the 2003 war? i can't find any reference, only to a hospital in Nasiriyah?

Successfully updated karma reason!

I am not going to ban fuzzyvet just because most of his posts are not worthy of a public restroom wall. He makes my point for me that some people just cannot handle conflict and resort to childish name calling. Much like the candidate that he backs.
And by his calling me un-busy and "kid" shows further that he is not even good at name calling. If he read my posts to some of his other baseless emotional rhetoric, he would know that I run exactly 3 businesses (1 Non-profit as Executive Director, 1 as a Sole propriatorship, and 1 as a managing Partner, am married to a woman who thinks that she is low maintenance, have 2 young children, 2 dogs, a house and a garden - I am taking this election cycle off as a political volunteer though (too busy) I have worked for a Congressional Representative campaign as a paid employee as well as vlunteered for other campaigns in the past.) Thak you fuzzy for showing your ignorance and lack of attention to previously stated facts.

All ignorance aside, I LOVE the info sent up by LadyCLeve

...deployed to Kuwait right after 9/11. When they arrived in Kuwait, Sadaam had his army lined up along the border ready to roll in. Once our troops got there, the Iraqis retreated, but gases were released...

Yeah - and they tell us there is no connection between Hussein and 9/11 too. Anyone remember seeing him on TV smiling and writting checks to families of pizza place and discotech bombers? No terror connections whatsoever. And Zakaraias Moussaui? Nevermind him.
- I saw a few articles about the gassed soldiers but did not take them as "proof" as requested in fuzzy's thread - from which he has banned me because he fears my facts ... whatever a "troll" is.

I find Soltair's arguments that one year is not = to another irrefutable.

2001 is not 2002

However I will say that if a person kills someone and we KNOW beyind a shadow of a doubt that he had the murder weapon yesterday but we cannot find it today, does he get off on that technicality?

Xioxan, as usual is elloquent and wise.

None huh??? You think that 155 mm howitzer shell with *SARIN* gas appeared out of no where? And that was *after* Oct 2002!

I'd like to add that the 155mm arty shell was one of 550 listed as "destroyed" by the former regime/UN inspections....another point I'd add is it contained cyclosarin which is far more deadly....

couchman !! Layin out the facts for the brainwashed nay-sayers. Thank you for that. I learned a few things from your post.

Chemicalkinetics - 9/23/2004 9:46:45 PM

Look... as great and as detail as your post.... extreme liberal won't listen to a word you say.

Sad but true.

Yes, he gassed people. Yes, it was terrible. Yes, something should have been done about that at the time. Where was the pre-emptive logic when that was going down? Who was President during that attrocity? Why didn't he DO something. Oh yeah...oops.

Well for all of the points that Bungy makes where I find no facts, at least he admits that fault lies with Clinton for many things that happened on his watch. So many on the left will not admit that CLinton ever did anything wrong. As much as I disagree with him, for that - I must respect him. At least once a President retires, there is objectivity.

And the real question is this: If there really were any solid evidence that he had WMD now (er, in 2002), don't you think the GOP/Bush camp would be telling us (ad nauseum)?

Yes. they have been. You are not listening. Prolly too busy cheering for Dan Blather. Don't worry - they will discuss it some more.
As for my prediction of an October surprise. Though one is called for every election cycle, one never materializes. But if I knew how to post a pic online, I would take your bet anyway - just for fun.
I'll be so happy when Kerry is sent packing that I'll likely be dancing in my underwear anyway - so what's a few snapshots?
In all seriousness - Kerry was right in Dec. 2003 when he said that anyone who thinks the world is better off with Saddam in power has neither the judgement nor the intellect to be President of the US.
It seems that a lot of people want him back. That's OK - a lot of people want Hitler back. A few people opposed the Serbian intervention and some even want Stalin back in Russia. So I guess... it takes all kinds...

Chew on this: The biggest supporters of this war are the military families. They are the ones who will come out in droves to re-elect the President. Every indication says that turnout among military families will be at record numbers this year. Using their dead relatives to make political points is an outrage to the memories of those brave young men and women.

And the final point. We are in there. there is no going back in time to do it all over. Moving foreward we can continue to send mixed messages and give comfort to the animals beheading civilians OR we can fight them until Iraq has its own democratically elected leaders and a suitable police/military force to keep it that way.

This is like viet-nam in 2 ways. 1st - unconventional tactics; and 2nd - American leftists doing more to help our enemies than our enemies own allies. Like it or not: In times such as we live, we need a hard-ass in the White House. A more sensative war encourages our enemies. We tried to fight a sensative war in VIet Nam and look what happened. It is widely believed that if we did not pussy-foot around with sending only minimal troops, that we would have won that war and the SVN would have taken control.

For Iraq - how many wars does the guy have to start (using banned weapons no less)? How many times does he get to shoot at Americans enforcing the UNs no fly zone? How many inspectors does he have to kick out? How many hundreds of thousands of poisoned citizens have to fill mass graves? How many wives of Political Dissidents does he have to have raped? How many children have to rot in prisons? How many palaces would he have to build with foreign aid money? How many terrorists would he have to pay or harbor or train or supply? If 17 were not enough, how many UN resolutions would he have had to violate? Does it all depends on how much money he is making for the French? Who cares what the French and Germans think about Iraq? Even they publicly declared that their best intelligence indicated that Iraq had WMDs at the time of Iraq2. They still didn't want to enforce the rules. Because special interests inside their countries were making billions and donating large sums to politicians. Sometimes you just have to do what is right - even if your friends disagree. I want a President who is willing to do that because my children's safety is at stake. And my children's children.

Learn from history. History shows us that appeasement and capitulation earns only more bloodshed and long lasting conflicts.
Ignoring maniacle dictators increases the quotent of misery and danger in the world.
A direct conquering with no holds barred earns our boys a quick ticket home and new democracys in the world.
Thus making the whole little blue and green ball a better place for all.

Successfully updated karma reason!

NEW EVIDENCE

Link

Border bombshells
IRAQ: A UN agency is finding evidence outside Iraq of Saddam's WMD program | by Mindy Belz

A government report is set to clear Iraq of possessing weapons of mass destruction just as new evidence surfaces that the Saddam Hussein regime did stockpile illegal arms—but managed to smuggle them out of the country before the U.S. inspectors arrived.

In a report recently submitted to the UN Security Council by its own weapons-inspection agency, experts confirm the discovery of over 40 engines from missiles banned by the UN but believed to have been retooled by Saddam Hussein to shoot down U.S. and British jet patrols. Further, the report documents an illegal trade in weapons-related goods. That trade, once banned under UN sanctions, has continued and increased under U.S. occupation of Iraq.

Yet despite those and other findings listed in the report from the UN's Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), inspectors working under the CIA are likely to conclude—in a final report due at the end of September—that Saddam Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction.

That conclusion, coming less than six weeks before U.S. elections, will force President George W. Bush to defend again his rationale for going to war in Iraq. It could also add irony to the iron will with which Mr. Bush has prosecuted the war: While his own inspectors may not back this key premise for the war, experts at the UN, where Mr. Bush failed to win backing for the war, seem now to endorse it.

The reason for a difference between UN findings and those of the CIA-led Iraq Survey Group is one of simple jurisdiction. When U.S. forces took over in Iraq, the Iraq Survey Group replaced UNMOVIC as inspectors inside the country. The Iraq Survey Group with its 1,400 personnel relied largely on defense and intelligence experts with little experience inside Iraq and massive amounts of territory and documentation to cover.

UNMOVIC shifted focus to neighboring countries. Its teams fanned across the region, eventually following leads to unlikely sources, including the scrap-metal yards of Jordan. There UN inspectors found:

• 20 SA-2 surface-to-air missile engines from Iraq.

• fragmented remains of an SA-2 airframe and booster.

• a solid-propellant-mixing vessel tagged for eventual destruction by UN inspectors during their pre-war visits.

• four chemical vessels made of corrosion-resistant material, also tagged by UN inspectors and banned as "dual-use" items for chemical weapons production.

Interviews with 20 scrap-metal traders, along with Jordanian and Iraqi truck drivers who transport salvage, revealed a massive trade in valuable alloys and scrap metal from Iraq that the Jordan Times called "sizeable, ongoing, and worldwide." All in all, the inspectors concluded that scrap company managers exported from Iraq 60,000 tons of scrap metal through Jordan's largest free trade zone in 2003. More surprisingly, they discovered an additional 70,000 tons of scrap metal exported through June 2004—during the time of U.S. control.

Merchants and traders describe high-quality industrial production equipment traded from facilities all over Iraq, purchased at low cost, dismantled and moved out of Iraq during the U.S. occupation—material, according to the UN report, that "could include equipment subject to [WMD] monitoring in Iraq."

What kind of interface do UN inspectors have with the Iraq Survey Group since publishing their findings? "None," said UNMOVIC spokesman Ewen Buchanan. "We know what they are up to, but have no official" cooperation. "We do not have access to Iraq."

Mr. Buchanan noted that Iraq Survey Group director Charles Duelfer "has access to our published reports like everyone else." But he said UNMOVIC has received no indication that ISG will include UN evidence in its report to Congress and other leaders later this month. And the CIA, for now, won't comment on the contents until its end-of-September release.

While reports have proliferated that Saddam Hussein loyalists smuggled WMD material out of Iraq ahead of the war, to Syria and elsewhere, the UN findings are the first to offer evidence that a black-market trade has continued after the U.S. invasion. "Clearly there are other priorities in Iraq for coalition forces and the Iraqi government, but security is one of the biggest ones," said Mr. Buchanan. "Certainly we would have thought the ISG would take steps to prohibit this kind of trade." —•

Link

And new evidence of the terror connection too:

Link

Possible Saddam-Al Qaeda Link Seen in U.N. Oil-for-Food Program
Monday, September 20, 2004
By Claudia Rosett and George Russell

LUGANO, Switzerland — Did Saddam Hussein use any of his ill-gotten billions filched from the United Nations Oil-for-Food program to help fund Al Qaeda?

Investigations have shown that the former Iraqi dictator grafted and smuggled more than $10 billion from the program that for seven years prior to Saddam's overthrow was meant to bring humanitarian aid to ordinary Iraqis. And the Sept. 11 Commission has shown a tracery of contacts between Saddam and Al Qaeda (search) that continued after billions of Oil-for-Food dollars began pouring into Saddam's coffers and Usama bin Laden (search) declared his infamous war on the U.S.

Now, buried in some of the United Nation's own confidential documents, clues can be seen that underscore the possibility of just such a Saddam-Al Qaeda link — clues leading to a locked door in this Swiss lakeside resort. (To review a series of documents, audits and other stories related to Oil-for-Food, click here.)

Next to that door, a festive sign spells out in gold letters under a green flag that this is the office of MIGA, the Malaysian Swiss Gulf and African Chamber (search). Registered here 20 years ago as a society to promote business between the Gulf States and Asia, Europe and Africa, MIGA is a company that the United Nations and the U.S. government says has served as a hub of Al Qaeda finance: A terrorist chamber of commerce.Link

This is the tip of the iceberg. More to follow. I can feel it in the air.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Well, yeah but the mustard gas attacks on Khurdish villages happened in 1987 and 1988. So, um...where does the fault lie for those?

I will however support your response that, as a liberal, I don't think Clinton is a saint. Signing DOMA, not coming clean (ouch!) about Monica sooner, and even some of the ways he responded to Hussein seemed both at that time and in retrospect to be wrong. And hey, I even said so at the time. Plenty of us supported Clinton without thinking he was a saint or never did anything wrong. We just thought he was a better candidate than Bush Sr. or Dole.

It seems that a lot of people want him back. That's OK - a lot of people want Hitler back. A few people opposed the Serbian intervention and some even want Stalin back in Russia. So I guess... it takes all kinds...

This binary thinking is getting a little tired. Because I question ridding Iraq of Hussein at any cost (and ouch, what a cost!) does not mean I want him back. I've yet to hear anyone (let alone a liberal) clammoring for his release. The question is were there other ways (even other military ways) of "ridding the world of Saddam," and has this administration been in too much of a hurry? And why the hurry? Even Republicans are questioning the success of this campaign and questioning the lack of planning, for an exit strategy and otherwise. But linking liberals with neo-Nazis....that's...wow...

Yes. they have been. You are not listening. Prolly too busy cheering for Dan Blather. Don't worry - they will discuss it some more.

Hmm. Do I need to wear an aluminum hat to hear this? Because I sure heard and saw the arguments for what weapons Hussein had before we went into Iraq. Seems like if he had them, they'd be talking about it just as loud. But since you are joining the grumblers in muttering "wait and see" I guess I'll just have to wait and see. Which brings me to...

so what's a few snapshots?

So, we're on? If video of stockpiles (or any significant numbers) of Hussein's 2002 WMD show up before the election, I will eat crow and and post a picture of myself dancing in my underwear. And if they don't, you will. I am sure there are some scenarios whereby we might need to quibble the point (e.g. a suicide bomber using sarin gas is not sufficient evidence of Hussein's maintained stockpile of WMD). But in the case of unequivocable evidence or unequivocable lack of evidence, we're on.

I push this point because I similarly get tired of wishful thinking and speculation mobilized in the place of argument. To misquote Billy Bob Thorton, "Speculate in one hand and take a crap in the other and tell me which one fills up faster."

Successfully updated karma reason!

On CLinton - very honest of you - and Bush Sr. alright - true enough, though we did go to war following that - we just didn't finish the job because the Un did not have the guts to do it.

As for more WMD news: If you do not get fox news or internet news you have and will continue to miss any evidence supporting the war or Bush so: No, no aluminum hat needed, just more news sources. See my post immediately before yours for further evidence that the UN itself is finding evidence of WMDs smuggled out of Iraq before and durring the war.

And regarding the bets: I will not bet wheat I cannot deliver so until I learn how to put a picture online, I cannot take the bet. But you will have my verbal retractions and appologies if even more than is already out there does not surface. Not that what's there already is not sufficient - because it is, I am just betting that there will be more. I would further bet that liberals will accept none of it no matter how compelling as these forums have tought me that evidence and facts mean little to some people. But if I am wrong, I will write a retraction/appology. I expect no less from you should you prove to be wrong. Pictures would be fun - I just don't have the skills to deliver - so I cannot bet that. But I do bet what I can deliver.

Successfully updated karma reason!

1 single shell that did contain chemical weapons is NOT a legal arguement that Saddam violated 1441.

Solitair.....
not quite old chap....try re-reading my post again....but here we go in big bold letters for you....

1) THE 155MM ARTILLERY SHELL USED AS PART OF AN IED WAS IN FACT FILLED WITH CYCLOSARIN

2) THE SHELL IN QUESTION WAS ONE OF 550 155MM ARTILLERY SHELLS PREVIOUSLY LISTED AS DESTROYED BY BOTH THE REGIME AND THE UN PRIOR TO THE OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM...NOT A MISFIRED SHELL DISCARDED AS YOU SO ERONIOUSLY PUT IT.

3)THE PRE-CUSOR CHEMICALS DISCOVED WERE FOUND IN MILITARY GRADE CONTAINERS AND HIDDEN WITHIN IRAQ'S LARGE MILITARY AMMO DUMPS (NOT EXACTLY A CIVILLIAN STORAGE DEPOT FOR COMMON PESTICIDES)

4) REGARDING THE CHEM/BIO SUITS...MOST DISCOVERED WERE EXACT CURRENT MODEL USED BY RUSSIAN MILITARY AND MANY SHOW RECENT MANUFACTORING LOT NUMBERS ON THEM...NOT LEFT OVER FROM THE IRAN/IRAQ WAR......AS FOR THE 1MILLION+ VIALS OF ATROPHENE THE REGIME BOUGHT IN THE YEAR BEFORE THE START OF THE WAR....IF THEY DIDNT HAVE WMD'S WHY WOULD THEY NEED SUCH AN ENOURMOUS AMOUNT?STOCKING STUFFERS???

5) AS FOR A LEGAL BASIS FOR THE WAR REGARDING 1441...IT FELL TO IRAQ TO PROVE TO ALL PARTIES INVOLVED THAT HE WASN'T CONTINUING OR HAD STOCKPILES OF WMD'S....THE BURDEN OF PROOF REQUIRED HARD EVIDENCE THAT THE REGIME DID INDEED COMPLY....MOST NOTABLY THE PHSYICAL EVIDENCE OF THE DESTROYED MUNITIONS, ETC.....NOT PAPER DOCUMENTS SAYING THEY DID....

5) PLEASE TAKE A STEP BACK FROM YOUR BIAS AND LOOK AT THE FACTS LOGICLY...ITS NOT THAT HARD...YOU WILL COME TO THE EXACT CONCLUSION THAT I AND MOST PEOPLE THE WORLD OVER DID QUITE A WHILE AGO

Couchman........
.......End Trans

Successfully updated karma reason!

3)THE PRE-CUSOR CHEMICALS DISCOVED WERE FOUND IN MILITARY GRADE CONTAINERS AND HIDDEN WITHIN IRAQ'S LARGE MILITARY AMMO DUMPS (NOT EXACTLY A CIVILLIAN STORAGE DEPOT FOR COMMON PESTICIDES)

For a while I worked in a massive department store in my home city. There was stuff out back in the darkest recesses of the vault that had likely never seen human hands since the opening of the building. I think if these alleged weapons were in a deep vault (and I assume you're not talking about the jury-rigged bomb the Poles found) then why is intent the most likely explanation? Saddams command and control had been shattered by over a decade of Allied bombing. Is it rational to assume that anyone knew exactly what lay in the vaults?

Also a single shell does not a WMD make. Cyclosarin might be the deadliest substance known to man, but a 155mm shell can only be fired a certain distance and has a very limited blast radius. It would have far less damage potential than a cluster bomb, and they are not considered WMDs. Yes it's chemical, but so's a bunker bomb. In addition the shelf-life on one of these weapons is probably quite limited - I don't have the science background to know the decay rates, but as far as I know when one of these shells went off in the desert a while back only one member of the investigating squad was badly injured. That doesn't sound like the equivalent of Hiroshima.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Reply #17 By: cactoblasta - 9/25/2004 12:37:11 AM
3)THE PRE-CUSOR CHEMICALS DISCOVED WERE FOUND IN MILITARY GRADE CONTAINERS AND HIDDEN WITHIN IRAQ'S LARGE MILITARY AMMO DUMPS (NOT EXACTLY A CIVILLIAN STORAGE DEPOT FOR COMMON PESTICIDES)

For a while I worked in a massive department store in my home city. There was stuff out back in the darkest recesses of the vault that had likely never seen human hands since the opening of the building. I think if these alleged weapons were in a deep vault (and I assume you're not talking about the jury-rigged bomb the Poles found) then why is intent the most likely explanation? Saddams command and control had been shattered by over a decade of Allied bombing. Is it rational to assume that anyone knew exactly what lay in the vaults?

Also a single shell does not a WMD make. Cyclosarin might be the deadliest substance known to man, but a 155mm shell can only be fired a certain distance and has a very limited blast radius. It would have far less damage potential than a cluster bomb, and they are not considered WMDs. Yes it's chemical, but so's a bunker bomb. In addition the shelf-life on one of these weapons is probably quite limited - I don't have the science background to know the decay rates, but as far as I know when one of these shells went off in the desert a while back only one member of the investigating squad was badly injured. That doesn't sound like the equivalent of Hiroshima.

This shows what you *don't'* know! No, the 155mm shell was NOT a WMD in itself.But when you couple that with the cyclosarin does *indeed* make a WMD of the bio/chem type. Again your ignorance of weapons shows through when you say it has *less* damage potential than a cluster bomb! You are correct to a *very* limited point! It's NOT the shell that's dangerous it was the cyclosarin contained inside. Chem and bio weapons do NOT depend on the effective blast radius of a particular ordinence to do their damage! Rather the blast helps in dispersal of the toxin! You also don't address the point that Saddam told the UN that, that particular shell was supposedly destroyed and didn't exsist! And the chemicals were in a *military* ammo dump NOT a vault or storage locker. And he** yes they knew what was there. Do not compare your department store vault with a military ammo dump! The analogy doesn't fit. The military knows EXACTLY what's in their ammo dumps! Our military or theirs, no difference on that account!

Successfully updated karma reason!

Chemical and biological weapons do rely on effective blast radius. They also rely on wind patterns, but a 155m gun is designed to hit the ground right? So the only airplay that the chems are going to see is on impact and for a while after, depending on the prevailing wind.

If the alleged WMD found by the Poles was a real WMD (at least in any meaningful sense of the word) then there would have been no survivors for several kilometres at least, or it would have resulted in mass casualties. I heard no evidence of this occuring nor have I heard anyone except you claim that this shell was capable of such damage.

However it seems that those on the right believe that any chemical or biological agent is a WMD, so I don't see any point in arguing any further and possibly raising DrMiler's excitement to an unhealthy level.

Successfully updated karma reason!

the alleged WMD found by the Poles was a real WMD (at least in any meaningful sense of the word) then there would have been no survivors for several kilometres at least, or it would have resulted in mass casualties. I heard no evidence of this occuring nor have I heard anyone except you claim that this shell was capable of such damage

*Please* don't take my word on this ask *any* *weapons* expert you want to, or go here and read about what you don't understand. Link When you finish reading by all means come back and we'll talk some more. But *read and learn* first. If you had EVER been in ANY military organization you would not be saying the stuff that you are! This is the kind of stuff they *teach* you BEFORE they let you out of bootcamp!
And BTW ANY bio/chem weapon is considered a WMD by every country in the world. The body count of that shell could have been in the millions had it been deployed as it was meant to be.

Successfully updated karma reason!

And then there are the 16 violated resolutions prior to 1441. Threatening use of force is only a deterent if there is follow through. The Geneva conventions and the terms of cease fire were not adheared to by Hussein. You cannot let these things slide. Appeasement has been tried in the past with dictators that attack neighboring countries and their own citizens. Appeasement in a case like that only allows the enemy to build up more strength prolonging the innevitable conflict and increasing casualties all around.

What we have here is a difference between people who desire to strike pre-emptively when there is just cause and those who would wait until the violators attack us first and then go to war. Some people will never condone war, even when they are attacked. There is no reasoning with such peace-niks. If some regime wants to create and use banned weapons - they prefer to allow that - or use "diplomatic means" like the sanctions that those same people cry killed thousands of Iraqi children due to poverty while Saddam had Palaces constructed and paid chemical biologists to develop illegal arms.

Ostriches bury their heads in the sand. Some people are no better.

I have to ask the peace-niks this too: Has the French or Russian objection to the war bought them any quarter with the terrorists? Appeasement has not worked before and we are witnessing how it is not working today.

I wish I could offer to fly all these people who think Iraq was a law abiding and non-threatening Nation to Faluja to discuss the issue. They would have their heads cut off or be similarly dealt with. These are the people we are dealing with. Too bad the appeasers get to sit back in their comfy chairs and critisize the people who are out there dealing with the evil directly. Too bad we can't have them switch places really.
Hippies to the front lines - Soldiers in the back!

Successfully updated karma reason!

couchman,
i did read and reply to your post. Please re-read my reply. You'll note that the shell was used as an explosive bomb and not as a chemical weapon. This is a clear indication that whoever found that shell had NO concept of what it was or how to use it, and rigged it as an explosive device. If they had known what it was they could have used it properly and killed hundreds of soldiers. It was therefore unlikely to have come from any supply dump. As I stated, this shell was thought to be a left over shell from previous wars that someone had probably stolen long ago or was misfired. No further shells have ever ben discovered or used. Do you really think the terrorists would not use them if they found them?
As for the chemical suits and atropene these are not WMD. Most well equiped armies have them. The US and UK armies have them. You accussing them of WMD? Pre-cursor chemicals are also NOT WMD.

This article is entitled proof of WMD, not suggestions or indications.

Paul.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Wingman412,
your link to the new UN material is indeed interesting. Having had a good read of all the material I'd say that what has been found however cannot be justified as current WMDs. The rocket engines could be from any stage pre war, and the tagged for disposal goods could easily have been smuggled out or even sent out as disposal. IT's also possible that they were tagged before invasion and had not yet been disposed. There is no also no suggestion that the containers actualyl contained WMD and the inspectors are very good at detecting traces of this stuff. No, it looks like this was just an example of Iraqis making money by selling useless metal to scrap yards.

Your second link however is very very tenuous. It shows no evidence. For now they talk of 'clues can be seen', 'possibility', and 'tracery'. People once saw clues of canals on Mars suggesting the possibility of civilization and a tracery of intelligence. Perhaps more hard evidence will follow, but for now one building being beside another is not proof of collusion.

Paul.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Solitar....please come out of your naive fog ...with regards to the 155mm shell....you dance around the issue rather well...but omit the biggest issue at heart...that a shell...whose seriel number is registered as being destroyed along with 549 others in its lot in accordance with UN and cease-fire agreements was found not to be previously destroyed...As for the chem/bio suits and the atrophene...once again your belittling the evidence on that...note that I stated in the short period before the war...bout a year to a year and a half..the regime bought the million vials of atrophene....and the fact that such a high amount was purchased for a country who suposedly was WMD free is laughable...one further point ...I never said they were WMD's....that was your leap of skewed logic

Successfully updated karma reason!

Reply #24 By: couchman - 9/26/2004 12:24:32 AM
Paul.

Solitar....please come out of your naive fog ...with regards to the 155mm shell....you dance around the issue rather well...but omit the biggest issue at heart...that a shell...whose seriel number is registered as being destroyed along with 549 others in its lot in accordance with UN and cease-fire agreements was found not to be previously destroyed...As for the chem/bio suits and the atrophene...once again your belittling the evidence on that...note that I stated in the short period before the war...bout a year to a year and a half..the regime bought the million vials of atrophene....and the fact that such a high amount was purchased for a country who suposedly was WMD free is laughable...one further point ...I never said they were WMD's....that was your leap of skewed logic

Actually it was my leap of *skewed* logic that called that shell a WMD. Which for all practicle intents and purposes it is.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.

There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting and posting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!

View all recent posts

Mark all posts as read Delete cookies created by the forum Return to Top

Stardock Forums v Server Load Time: Page Render Time: