http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq.documents/index.html)

"Intelligence documents that U.S. and British governments said were strong evidence that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons have been dismissed as forgeries by U.N. weapons inspector"

So, what new evidence to justify the war will be "digged up"?

And here are some very interesting facts:

1. Iraq is the most poked, prodded, infeltrated, photagraphed, x-rayed, and spyed upon country on the planet, and yet inspectors have found nothing that really smacks of WoMD. Funny how that is.

2. Most of the 'evidence' is turning out to be pretty much frabricated BS. If the U.S had actual evidence, they should have found something by now. Hitch up your pants, America; your credibility gap is showing.

3. The U.S. has bombed Iraq on almost a weekly basis for the las 12 years, and in doing so has pounded most of that country into ruin, and killed over half a million people. The facilities for creating weapons are mostly destroyed.

4. Much like nukes (of which he has none), Saddam's bio and chemical weapons have a short shelf life, and must be monitered and maintained. Facilities used to store bio weapons in particular are difficult to hide.

Finally, America shouldn't throw stones, when they are terrorists themselves. Here's a short but infamous list of attrocities of which America is responsible for:

1953: U.S. overthrows Prime Minister Mossadeq of Iran. U.S. installs Shah as dictator.
1954: U.S. overthrows democratically-elected President Arbenz of Guatemala. 200,000 civilians killed.
1963: U.S. backs assassination of South Vietnamese President Diem.
1963-1975: American military kills 4 million civilians in Southeast Asia.
September 11, 1973: U.S. stages coup in Chile. Democratically elected president Salvador Allende assassinated. Dictator Augusto Pinochet installed. 5,000 Chileans murdered.
1977: U.S. backs military rulers of El Salvador. 70,000 Salvadorans and four American nuns killed.
1980's: U.S. trains Osama bin Laden and fellow terrorists to kill Soviets. CIA gives them $3 billion.
1981: Reagan administration trains and funds "contras". 30,000 Nicaraguans die.
1982: U.S. provides billions in aid to Saddam Hussein for weapons to kill Iranians.
1983: White House secretly gives Iran weapons to help them kill Iraqis.
1989: CIA agent Manuel Noriega (also serving as President of Panama) disobeys orders from Washington. U.S. invades Panama and removes Noriega. 3,000 Panamanian civilian casualties
1990: Iraq invades Kuwait with weapons from U.S.
1991: U.S. enters Iraq. Bush reinstates dictator of Kuwait.
1998: Clinton bombs "weapons factory" in Sudan. Factory turns out to be making aspirin.
1991 to present: American planes bomb Iraq on a weekly basis. U.N. estimates 500,000 Iraqi children die from bombing and sanctions.
2000-01: U.S. gives Taliban-ruled Afghanistan $245 million in "aid".
September 11, 2001: Osama Bin Laden uses his expert CIA training to murder 3,000 people.

First it said that Iraq was aiding terrorism, supposedly the Al Qaeda. No evidence, and the connection between the two was invented.

Now it's about his WMDs. No positive evidence. Most (if not all) of his biochemical facilities have been destroyed. Such weapons are very hard to maintain - they'll turn useless if they're left to rot in a bunker in the desert. They need a whole crew of scientists, and big production facilities to maintain them.

Then it was about human rights. When has the US cared about human rights anywhere in the world? Did they not recently torture two prisoners to death?

Now it's about stability in the middle east. Only, this war will bring LESS stability, not more. BTW, I might add, once again, that Israel has broken far more UN human rights resolutions than Iraq, and USA has vetoed against taking action towards, every f*cking time.

Then we get to "fighting terrorism by attacking Iraq". As if. If Iraq actually had some connection to terror groups, I might begin to take it seriously, but even then, invading a country does nothing but increasing resistance movements.

Go figure. And this there's all the crap about forged evidence and invented connections.

My respect for the US is dwindling. Fast.

Ah but the question really is, since the UN is against going to war, did they just call them forgeries because they knew it would instigate war because they were real? This is also a possibility.

And when you say US, I assume you mean the government and not the people. (Just checking)


Did they not recently torture two prisoners to death?

Hmm I was unaware of this happening, could I have a link please? I'm interested in reading this.



A question for you C'jais, I respect your opinions even though you seem to disagree with me on EVERYTHING. :D But, if the Us did go to war, Saddam was killed and Iraq was rebuilt with minimal civilian casualties, will your oppinion for the US government grow stronger? Just wondering or do you have a steadfast disrespect for them.

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
Ah but the question really is, since the UN is against going to war, did they just call them forgeries because they knew it would instigate war because they were real? This is also a possibility.

No it is not. CIA has admitted themselves (if you read the article), that they are forgeries.

And when you say US, I assume you mean the government and not the people. (Just checking)

I always do that. I can't be arsed to type "The US government", so I just say the US ;)

Hmm I was unaware of this happening, could I have a link please? I'm interested in reading this.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/ISL243253?view=PrinterFriendly)

A question for you C'jais, I respect your opinions even though you seem to disagree with me on EVERYTHING. :D But, if the Us did go to war, Saddam was killed and Iraq was rebuilt with minimal civilian casualties, will your oppinion for the US government grow stronger? Just wondering or do you have a steadfast disrespect for them.

That's a good question.

Unfortunately, we can't just look at the short terms effects of this war. Democracy is not going to pop up from nowhere after Saddam is gone. Afghanistan is pretty much just as worse off now, than before, and the US has stopped rebuilding it by now.

This war will increase terrorism - Big time. No doubt about that.

While and after the war, people won't be speculating in the dollar. Iraq possesses the second largest oil deposit in the world.

CIA and MI6 have both voiced their warning against this war, and they do not fully support Bush.

Do we have a right to invade and remove every single dictator in the world? (Especially considering that the US doesn't give a sh*t about human rights - it does seem a bit hypocritical to me.)

There are simply so many other places in the world where the US could move in and save the day. Just take Tibet, Rwanda or N. Korea as an example. This whole deal is about war and the effects on the dollar. It is not about "saving" the Iraqi people.

Here's a fact on the military in the US: The US military industry is the largest in the world. It provides millions of jobs. The US needs a war to justify all that hardware - otherwise there's plenty of good reasons to disarm.

And speaking of disarmament: Is the US were asked by the UN to produce a full report on all their NBC weapons, would you expect them to give it? Hell no. The US is no better than Iraq when it comes to this.

I could go on and on, but I don't have that time. (:

-C'

Well, all i have to say about this is:


:eek:



This may change my view completely........

I have to seriously do some rethinking on my political views due to this....

Think what you want. As long as your respect for Americans doesnt dwindle... ;)

Originally posted by C'jais
Saddam's bio and chemical weapons have a short shelf life, and must be monitered and maintained.

So what?? He still has the weapons, and the capabilites to use them.


BTW, this is a good article jais, but it will not stop the US going to war, and I doubt that it will sway many of the wars supporters.

Originally posted by ckcsaber
So what?? He still has the weapons, and the capabilites to use them.

"So what?"

That Saddam does not have any more biochemical facilities, and there have been found no trace of those weapons, it means that they're completely useless, even if he was hiding them in some bunker out in nowhere.

Since everyone's keeping the pressure on him, he's disarming, and those weapons he's hiding will be useless before long.

Think what you want. As long as your respect for Americans doesnt dwindle...

It won't. Don't worry.

America is still a great country, no matter how foolish your president is making it look currently.

Originally posted by C'jais
That Saddam does not have any more biochemical facilities

He has mobile chemical labs. The US has evidence of this, one coming from an Iraqi chemical engineer who defected. They still have the labs.

Master Jedi ckcsaber, correct me if I'am wrong but I think your point is if Iraq has any weapons at all, any at all. Then they are in violation. If they are in violation, then they must pay the consequences.

If this is your point then I agree with you. I just believe the US going to war over it is unessasary. There are better ways of keeping Sadam on the hot seat, ones in which we would not have to break a sweat.

But a war, it's just overkill and our own state department has said if we attack Iraq there will be a very, very serious chance someone will do something else terrible like 911 here in the States. And that if we don't attack, almost no chance at all.

Our goverment (Bush) knows this, he says were going to attack Iraq to save lives. I think he doesn't care at all about any of us.

Exactly. He wants to finish a job undone left behind by his father, and put an actual record of a GOOD thing he has done under his belt since he was put into office. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by ckcsaber
He has mobile chemical labs. The US has evidence of this, one coming from an Iraqi chemical engineer who defected. They still have the labs.

Those mobile labs can only manufacture such weapons. They cannot in any way to be used to store several tons of them.

Do you realize how easy it is to create chemical and biological weapons? You can make chemical weapons out of household materials. You need only ask CIA for permission to create a vaccine from biological samples and you've got yourself a biological nightmare on your hands. Bin Laden's anthrax came from the CIA, in fact (oh, and he was trained by them as well, to fight russians).

What's curious is that Israel has several WMDs (including nuclear weapons), and that they aren't under any kind of agreement from the UN to not spread those weapons. They could sell them to anyone, and it'd never be noticed. They've broken way more resolutions than Iraq, with the US shielding them from actions by vetoing the security council. Al Qaeda could get their weapons from any place in the world - Pakistan, Israel, USA, Iran, Russia etc.

It doesn't matter if Iraq has a few barrels of mustard gas. So what? He's got no connection to any terror organizations, no incentive to use them, and his country is so battered from Gulf War 1 that if he should ever do something, he'd be pounded to dust.

But sure, go ahead and remove him. The country will be torn apart by all the individual factions wanting a slice of the cake, resistance movements and terrorism will increase, and maybe we'll find some planted evidence in Iraq to "justify" your war - but hey, at least your military industry will profit from this, you'll get easy access to oil and people are hopefully going to take actions against Israel as well now.

Originally posted by wassup
Exactly. He wants to finish a job undone left behind by his father, and put an actual record of a GOOD thing he has done under his belt since he was put into office. :rolleyes:

Good thing? To kill a couple of million innocents, to piss off all the Arabic countries (and thereby increasing terrorism) and ruining the Europe-USA relationship? When did that become a good thing?

Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn
Good thing? To kill a couple of million innocents

A "couple of million" might be a tad unrealistic ;)

Is it just me, or does no one want to reply to this thread, in which I took the time to make several huge posts?

Heh, heh... I agree that these forgeries aren't US made... Simply because then it wouldn't have been discovered... Qui, I think he means one thing that el Prez thinks will be good...

Still, I'm surprised that I've missed this so completely... I really should read more newspapers.

Originally posted by C'jais
A "couple of million" might be a tad unrealistic ;)


Ah, well, a couple of millions is a worst-case scenario. But serveral hundreds of thousands is a realistic number.

It might be that the US Gov. is so sure that he has a particular WMD, of which the origin is one that they do not wish to disclose. Time and again Powel, Rumsfeld, et al have indicated that they have information sources that cannot be disclosed. It would be ironic if those information sources are us! The reason we're so sure they have something is not becuase of their accounting, but ours.

Just a possibility. I have nothing at all to support it.

That didn't make much sense to me, Skin.

Yeah... I was in a rush to get to work....

I was trying to say that one possibility that exists is that the U.S. Gov. is sure that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction that are unaccounted for because the U.S. Gov. gave it to them and still has a record of it.

Iraq wants to keep the existance of said WMD a secret because Iraq doesn't want to give them up.

U.S. wants to recover them, but doesn't want to tell how it knows they exist... that would reveal that the U.S. provided them.

That just came to me as I was reading the post by Cjais about no positive evidence for WMDs. I remember Bush admin officials stating that they had evidence that they could not reveal.

It's just a possibililty and perhaps an unlikely one. But it would explain the "evidence that cannot be revealed." ;)

Originally posted by SkinWalker
Yeah... I was in a rush to get to work....

I was trying to say that one possibility that exists is that the U.S. Gov. is sure that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction that are unaccounted for because the U.S. Gov. gave it to them and still has a record of it.

Iraq wants to keep the existance of said WMD a secret because Iraq doesn't want to give them up.

U.S. wants to recover them, but doesn't want to tell how it knows they exist... that would reveal that the U.S. provided them.

That just came to me as I was reading the post by Cjais about no positive evidence for WMDs. I remember Bush admin officials stating that they had evidence that they could not reveal.

It's just a possibililty and perhaps an unlikely one. But it would explain the "evidence that cannot be revealed." ;)

This reminds me of several stories like this from WWII. There were many instances where allied forces had info that could have saved lives, but it was not shared for fear the enemy would realize there was a leak, so to speak. For example there were several instances where allied commanders had decoded radio transmitions that made them realize a convoy of unarmed cargo ships would be attacked by German u boats. But fearing the Germans would know that someone had broken the code, they would allow the convoy to be attacked. Got any idea what it's like slipping into the North Atlantic in winter?

It would not suprise me 1 bit if they DO know something they are not saying.

Generally speaking Western culture has an inherent flaw of coveting that what should be shared. Soon they covet so much they don't use it even for themselves.


THis is where the dragon myths come from.