crimson_grunt
Shitty Disposition (apparently)
+214|6671|Teesside, UK

Kmarion wrote:

From the UK.

Chapter 3: The current position: 1998-2002

1. This chapter sets out what we know of Saddam's chemical, biological, nuclear and ballistic missile programmes, drawing on all the available evidence. While it takes account of the results from UN inspections and other publicly available information, it also draws heavily on the latest intelligence about Iraqi efforts to develop their programmes and capabilities since 1998. The main conclusions are that:

[    *
      Iraq has a useable chemical and biological weapons capability, in breach of UNSCR 687, which has included recent production of chemical and biological agents;
    *
      Saddam continues to attach great importance to the possession of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, which he regards as being the basis for Iraq's regional power. He is determined to retain these capabilities;
    *
      Iraq can deliver chemical and biological agents using an extensive range of artillery shells, free-fall bombs, sprayers and ballistic missiles;
    *
      Iraq continues to work on developing nuclear weapons, in breach of its obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and in breach of UNSCR 687. Uranium has been sought from Africa that has no civil nuclear application in Iraq;
    *
      Iraq possesses extended-range versions of the SCUD ballistic missile in breach of UNSCR 687, which are capable of reaching Cyprus, Eastern Turkey, Tehran and Israel. It is also developing longer range ballistic missiles;
    *
      Iraq's current military planning specifically envisages the use of chemical and biological weapons;
    *
      Iraq's military forces are able to use chemical and biological weapons, with command, control and logistical arrangements in place. The Iraqi military are able to deploy these weapons within forty five minutes of a decision to do so;
    *
      Iraq has learnt lessons from previous UN weapons inspections and is already taking steps to conceal and disperse sensitive equipment and documentation in advance of the return of inspectors;
    *
      Iraq's chemical, biological, nuclear and ballistic missiles programmes are well-funded.
I've said it before and I'll say it again.  I think it's unfair to throw the downing street website at us when it's quite clear that Tony Blair & his cronies had to manufacture a case to get the public to back a war that people  felt was a bad idea.  I believe that page is more fabrication to build his case & cover his back than an intelligence report

Last edited by crimson_grunt (2007-03-01 02:39:05)

EVieira
Member
+105|6495|Lutenblaag, Molvania

crimson_grunt wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

From the UK.

Chapter 3: The current position: 1998-2002

1. This chapter sets out what we know of Saddam's chemical, biological, nuclear and ballistic missile programmes, drawing on all the available evidence. While it takes account of the results from UN inspections and other publicly available information, it also draws heavily on the latest intelligence about Iraqi efforts to develop their programmes and capabilities since 1998. The main conclusions are that:

[    *
      Iraq has a useable chemical and biological weapons capability, in breach of UNSCR 687, which has included recent production of chemical and biological agents;
    *
      Saddam continues to attach great importance to the possession of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, which he regards as being the basis for Iraq's regional power. He is determined to retain these capabilities;
    *
      Iraq can deliver chemical and biological agents using an extensive range of artillery shells, free-fall bombs, sprayers and ballistic missiles;
    *
      Iraq continues to work on developing nuclear weapons, in breach of its obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and in breach of UNSCR 687. Uranium has been sought from Africa that has no civil nuclear application in Iraq;
    *
      Iraq possesses extended-range versions of the SCUD ballistic missile in breach of UNSCR 687, which are capable of reaching Cyprus, Eastern Turkey, Tehran and Israel. It is also developing longer range ballistic missiles;
    *
      Iraq's current military planning specifically envisages the use of chemical and biological weapons;
    *
      Iraq's military forces are able to use chemical and biological weapons, with command, control and logistical arrangements in place. The Iraqi military are able to deploy these weapons within forty five minutes of a decision to do so;
    *
      Iraq has learnt lessons from previous UN weapons inspections and is already taking steps to conceal and disperse sensitive equipment and documentation in advance of the return of inspectors;
    *
      Iraq's chemical, biological, nuclear and ballistic missiles programmes are well-funded.
I've said it before and I'll say it again.  I think it's unfair to throw the downing street website at us when it's quite clear that Tony Blair & his cronies had to manufacture a case to get the public to back a war that people  felt was a bad idea.  I believe that page is more fabrication to build his case & cover his back than an intelligence report
This is really allot more like the religious threads. You have to have faith in Bush and Blair's goverments, because they simply have failed to provide a single bit of evidence, not a trace of anthrax or uranium, to back up their claims.

I predict that soon there will be movements to put in the school history books the "Theory of evaporating WMDs that leave no trace at all" as to why they where never found in Iraq, since it is as plausible as Creationism.
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered;  the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei  (1564-1642)
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6618|132 and Bush

Keep in mind I was demonstrating that the belief was not only held by the US. Information does not equal intelligence.

Last edited by Kmarion (2007-03-01 04:02:14)

Xbone Stormsurgezz
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6559|Texas - Bigger than France

Bubbalo wrote:

Pug wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:


No, you didn't.  What few supposedly diplomatic requests the US did take were a farce to try and cast a shadow of legitimacy on the invasion.  Bush was going to invade come hell or high water, and he
made that very clear.
Again, basically restating a difference of opinion.
No, it isn't.  The US supplied and ultimatum, then invaded.  There is no possible way to twist that to "they tried diplomatic action and it failed".
Again, a difference of opinion.  I'm not going to argue with you, just tell you that we disagree.  You act like there was nothing before an ultimatum.  But despite this, you are focused on the wrong thing.

I've come to the conclusion in this thread that you hate the US.  Why?  The news in the OP is long awaited good news.  Your behavior in this thread isn't such that "oh this is great news"...it's "US sucks".  (Again, you are entitled to your opinion.)  I make my case based on the fact you are focused on damning the justification of the war instead of being focused on the future.  I also make this case based on my inability to pull anything positive out of any of your posts in this thread.
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6546|Global Command

Pug wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

Pug wrote:


Again, basically restating a difference of opinion.
No, it isn't.  The US supplied and ultimatum, then invaded.  There is no possible way to twist that to "they tried diplomatic action and it failed".
Again, a difference of opinion.  I'm not going to argue with you, just tell you that we disagree.  You act like there was nothing before an ultimatum.  But despite this, you are focused on the wrong thing.

I've come to the conclusion in this thread that you hate the US.  Why?  The news in the OP is long awaited good news.  Your behavior in this thread isn't such that "oh this is great news"...it's "US sucks".  (Again, you are entitled to your opinion.)  I make my case based on the fact you are focused on damning the justification of the war instead of being focused on the future.  I also make this case based on my inability to pull anything positive out of any of your posts in this thread.
+1
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|6774|Argentina
Bush deserves a Nobel Peace Prize.
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6559|Texas - Bigger than France

sergeriver wrote:

Bush deserves a Nobel Peace Prize.
Again, a difference of opinion...just kidding.

I'm glad everyone is receiving this news negatively.  GJ everyone.
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|6774|Argentina

Pug wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Bush deserves a Nobel Peace Prize.
Again, a difference of opinion...just kidding.

I'm glad everyone is receiving this news negatively.  GJ everyone.
No, it's a huge step, but it doesn't mean Bush did good in the past.  Why didn't he try diplomacy 4 years ago?

Last edited by sergeriver (2007-03-01 11:00:31)

usmarine2007
Banned
+374|6384|Columbus, Ohio

sergeriver wrote:

Pug wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Bush deserves a Nobel Peace Prize.
Again, a difference of opinion...just kidding.

I'm glad everyone is receiving this news negatively.  GJ everyone.
No, it's a huge step, but it doesn't mean Bush did wrong in the past.  Why didn't he try diplomacy 4 years ago?
Some dude named Saddam.

Last edited by usmarine2007 (2007-03-01 11:01:15)

sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|6774|Argentina

usmarine2007 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Pug wrote:


Again, a difference of opinion...just kidding.

I'm glad everyone is receiving this news negatively.  GJ everyone.
No, it's a huge step, but it doesn't mean Bush did wrong in the past.  Why didn't he try diplomacy 4 years ago?
Some dude named Saddam.
The guy with the WMD's in Iraq?
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6559|Texas - Bigger than France

sergeriver wrote:

Pug wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Bush deserves a Nobel Peace Prize.
Again, a difference of opinion...just kidding.

I'm glad everyone is receiving this news negatively.  GJ everyone.
No, it's a huge step, but it doesn't mean Bush did good in the past.  Why didn't he try diplomacy 4 years ago?
Revisionist history, nice work.  I think you meant to say "why didn't he try MORE diplomacy 4 years ago?"
usmarine2007
Banned
+374|6384|Columbus, Ohio

sergeriver wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:


No, it's a huge step, but it doesn't mean Bush did wrong in the past.  Why didn't he try diplomacy 4 years ago?
Some dude named Saddam.
The guy with the WMD's in Iraq?
Not sure, ask Clinton or Gore.
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|6774|Argentina

usmarine2007 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:


Some dude named Saddam.
The guy with the WMD's in Iraq?
Not sure, ask Clinton or Gore.
Oh, yeah, they are guilty of all this mess.  Please, don't put some movie with Clinton talking of WMD's in Iraq.  He had the same intelligence services.  The difference is he didn't invade Iraq.
usmarine2007
Banned
+374|6384|Columbus, Ohio

sergeriver wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:


The guy with the WMD's in Iraq?
Not sure, ask Clinton or Gore.
Oh, yeah, they are guilty of all this mess.  Please, don't put some movie with Clinton talking of WMD's in Iraq.  He had the same intelligence services.  The difference is he didn't invade Iraq.
Was Bosnia a threat to the US or the world?
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|6774|Argentina

usmarine2007 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:


Not sure, ask Clinton or Gore.
Oh, yeah, they are guilty of all this mess.  Please, don't put some movie with Clinton talking of WMD's in Iraq.  He had the same intelligence services.  The difference is he didn't invade Iraq.
Was Bosnia a threat to the US or the world?
No, it was a threat to the Bosnians.  There was no oil involved, so Clinton's decision was 100% humanitarian, he was avoiding a Genocide.  Bush didn't go to Iraq coz he was deeply concerned about Iraqis.  That's the difference.
usmarine2007
Banned
+374|6384|Columbus, Ohio

sergeriver wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:


Oh, yeah, they are guilty of all this mess.  Please, don't put some movie with Clinton talking of WMD's in Iraq.  He had the same intelligence services.  The difference is he didn't invade Iraq.
Was Bosnia a threat to the US or the world?
No, it was a threat to the Bosnians.  There was no oil involved, so Clinton's decision was 100% humanitarian, he was avoiding a Genocide.  Bush didn't go to Iraq coz he was deeply concerned about Iraqis.  That's the difference.
But why doesn't anyone bring that up when they start bitching about the US getting involved in people's business?  And does that not contribute to the war machine?
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|6774|Argentina

usmarine2007 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:


Was Bosnia a threat to the US or the world?
No, it was a threat to the Bosnians.  There was no oil involved, so Clinton's decision was 100% humanitarian, he was avoiding a Genocide.  Bush didn't go to Iraq coz he was deeply concerned about Iraqis.  That's the difference.
But why doesn't anyone bring that up when they start bitching about the US getting involved in people's business?  And does that not contribute to the war machine?
I don't know everyone else, but I don't bitch about US getting involved if the motivations are humanitarian like Clinton's decisions to get involved in Bosnia or Somalia.  I bitch about Bush making a mess in Iraq.  I support Clinton, even with his mistakes (he is human).  But I can't support Bush knowing his motivations.  If you think Bush gives a shit about Iraq, you are wrong.  He's trying to improve his image and that's why he's after a diplomatic solution now.
usmarine2007
Banned
+374|6384|Columbus, Ohio

sergeriver wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:


No, it was a threat to the Bosnians.  There was no oil involved, so Clinton's decision was 100% humanitarian, he was avoiding a Genocide.  Bush didn't go to Iraq coz he was deeply concerned about Iraqis.  That's the difference.
But why doesn't anyone bring that up when they start bitching about the US getting involved in people's business?  And does that not contribute to the war machine?
I don't know everyone else, but I don't bitch about US getting involved if the motivations are humanitarian like Clinton's decisions to get involved in Bosnia or Somalia.  I bitch about Bush making a mess in Iraq.  I support Clinton, even with his mistakes (he is human).  But I can't support Bush knowing his motivations.  If you think Bush gives a shit about Iraq, you are wrong.  He's trying to improve his image and that's why he's after a diplomatic solution now.
So, no blame for him letting the UN inspection process in Iraq spiral out of control?
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|6774|Argentina

usmarine2007 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:


But why doesn't anyone bring that up when they start bitching about the US getting involved in people's business?  And does that not contribute to the war machine?
I don't know everyone else, but I don't bitch about US getting involved if the motivations are humanitarian like Clinton's decisions to get involved in Bosnia or Somalia.  I bitch about Bush making a mess in Iraq.  I support Clinton, even with his mistakes (he is human).  But I can't support Bush knowing his motivations.  If you think Bush gives a shit about Iraq, you are wrong.  He's trying to improve his image and that's why he's after a diplomatic solution now.
So, no blame for him letting the UN inspection process in Iraq spiral out of control?
Who are you talking about?  Bush?
usmarine2007
Banned
+374|6384|Columbus, Ohio

sergeriver wrote:

Who are you talking about?  Bush?
No, Clinton.
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6559|Texas - Bigger than France

sergeriver wrote:

I don't know everyone else, but I don't bitch about US getting involved if the motivations are humanitarian like Clinton's decisions to get involved in Bosnia or Somalia.  I bitch about Bush making a mess in Iraq.  I support Clinton, even with his mistakes (he is human).  But I can't support Bush knowing his motivations.  If you think Bush gives a shit about Iraq, you are wrong.  He's trying to improve his image and that's why he's after a diplomatic solution now.
Then apparently Kurds + Gas =

This thread sucks.
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6546|Global Command

sergeriver wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:


Oh, yeah, they are guilty of all this mess.  Please, don't put some movie with Clinton talking of WMD's in Iraq.  He had the same intelligence services.  The difference is he didn't invade Iraq.
Was Bosnia a threat to the US or the world?
No, it was a threat to the Bosnians.  There was no oil involved, so Clinton's decision was 100% humanitarian, he was avoiding a Genocide.  Bush didn't go to Iraq coz he was deeply concerned about Iraqis.  That's the difference.
The United States got involved because we wanted a in your face show of power inside the former USSR.

All bullshit aside, that's why we were there. Presidents don't make war policy.
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|6774|Argentina

usmarine2007 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Who are you talking about?  Bush?
No, Clinton.
Maybe you prefer Bush ignoring them instead.
usmarine2007
Banned
+374|6384|Columbus, Ohio

sergeriver wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Who are you talking about?  Bush?
No, Clinton.
Maybe you prefer Bush ignoring them instead.
Point is, he let it become such a mess, that all the dems thought he had WMD's.
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|6774|Argentina

usmarine2007 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:


No, Clinton.
Maybe you prefer Bush ignoring them instead.
Point is, he let it become such a mess, that all the dems thought he had WMD's.
Because they had the same wrong intelligence reports.  The difference between Clinton and Bush is, while Clinton didn't invade Iraq, Bush based on the same reports did.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard