UN experts - WMD material removed from I raq

“http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050603/D8AFSH1O1.html

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - U.N. satellite imagery experts have determined that material that could be used to make biological or chemical weapons and banned long-range missiles has been removed from 109 sites in Iraq, U.N. weapons inspectors said in a report obtained Thursday.



[snip]”

“sarge, you need to mix it up a bit.

throw in a few more gear and trip threads 'tween your fuegos.”

“I have responded to them, and I did start a gear thread re: stoves. Thanks for looking out though.

No trips though ... ACL recontruction 3 weeks ago ...
last edited: 6/03/05 10:08:26 AM”

“wonder if bush's boys will decide they've been moved to iran so we can strike there next.

who is it we're fighting now anyway?

oceania? eurasia? eastasia?

i lose track.”

“This to me is near proof that the war was never about WMDs. If it had been, you can be sure we would have guarded known sites. Instead, there is a chance that dangerous equipment has fallen into the hands of terrorists - the exact reason we were told we had to invade.

What a bunch of Qaa Qaa.”

“i know you had that one stove thread sarge.

t'was a good start”

“Eurasia sacco.

Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.”

“and responded to many others

sacco - I understand you don't want to acknowledge Iraq had WMD, and Bush did not lie.

t'was a good dodge”

“and venus has invaded uranus an many occasions”

“Is that how you read this story sarge?

Amazing!”

“Instead, there is a chance that dangerous equipment has fallen into the hands of terrorists - the exact reason we were told we had to invade.

So ... what you're saying is Bush did not lie.

I'm glad the truth is finally coming out.”

“Ok Violin, let's hear the "spin" version.

What, they didn't have WMD?

And you guys wonder why you're losing seats in government ...

LOL

Nobody can take you lefties seriously anymore.
last edited: 6/03/05 10:14:51 AM”

“Read the story stupid.

The UN was monitoring those sites because they contained dual use equipment.

Per the 'Downing Street memo', the facts were being fixed around the policy.

Bush lied.

QED”

“Wasn't that the case with those aluminum tubes or something like that? They said they could have been used for some type of enrichment, but not necessarily so? I think you may be grasping at straws here. This is conclusive of nothing...”

“Actually, Bubya was predicting the future when he said that. There are indeed lots of WMD in Iraq - truck bombs, roadside bombs, car bombs, bombs in markets, bombs in police stations, bombs strapped to terrorists. But it's okay. Unca Dick says it's almost over. Mission accomplished. Oh yeah, that was a prognostication too.”

“so 109 sites where UN Weapons Inspectors couldn't find anything before the war now has been looted?”

“Before the first Gulf War in 1991, those facilities played a major part in the production of precursors for Iraq's chemical warfare program.

yeah, then Saddam got nice and decided to use them for saving the world ...

LOL - Like I said, nobody can take you guys seriously. Let's exercise some common sense.”

“thanks V-man. now i'm ready for the next HATE.


sarge, i'm not dodging anything.

i'm just being silly.”

“hyway, try to keep your eyes on the shell with the pea under it. Try!”

“Is that supposed to be a point of some kind?”

“Yawn. So, is there anything new or are we rehashing what we already know?”

“We're rehashing what we already knew - that Saddam had WMD and Bush didn't lie.

It's just that the UN just now acknowledges it publically, sort of.
last edited: 6/03/05 1:37:42 PM”

“Try to keep your eye on the pea under the walnut shell Chili.”

“It's really odd that people are making a big deal out of this article. Every country has dual use materials, materials that "could be used" to make WMDs.

A key summarizing statement in the article is He said the missing material can be used for legitimate purposes. "However, they can also be utilized for prohibited purposes if in a good state of repair."

All of this material went missing after the invasion. If the US gov't and military was paying attention, then what is missing is useless for WMD purposes. If the US wasn't paying attention, then it was another huge lapse on the part of the invasion planners - but I have not seen evidence for this.

Anyhow, it is misleading to call it WMD material. It is material which had the potential for use in making WMD's.
last edited: 6/03/05 1:46:00 PM”

“Hell, mixing certain household cleansers together will make chlorine gas. I guess most every home in the United States could potentially make WMD.”

“pedx - Those centers were used for making WMD. Is there any evidence that companies had purchased that hazardous WMD-grade materal for other uses?

What's funny is how people give Saddam the benefit of the doubt, but not Bush. Bush was right - Saddam had WMD. He was trying to make more. He had specific people on the payroll to do just that. Yet, these people want to say Bush lied and he had those things. There is a definite disconnect there with the "logic" of the left.”

“I guess most every home in the United States could potentially make WMD.

Is this some kind of collective amnesia?

Saddam had WMD.

Saddam made WMD.

Saddam bought WMD.

Saddam pursued WMD.

Saddam used WMD.

This is all fact.

AND, WMD were manufactured at the facilities in question.

To equate this with the average American home is ... desperate.”

“I just can't see how this scenario could be the way you say it is, Sarge. You've got 109 sites that were previously under scrutiny through inspections, it seems. After the invasion, and during the period where the inspectors were no longer allowed in, we had teams of people scouring Iraq fro WMDs. How did this get passed over so easily? And how can you possibly determine that he was building weapons? This administration already admitted "faulty intelligence". Now, you are telling me that the whole thing is turned around based on something that could have more than one purpose? And, what about the possibility that the insurgency could have moved these items? That doesn't seem to be addressed either. Sorry, not buying it...”

“Sarge, I have no doubt that Saddam would try to produce some type of WMD to use against his neighbors or others, but the evidence showing that he was doing just that is shaky at best. Saddam was a terrible and dangerous man who at some point would had to have been taken out, but I would have rather have seen it happen when there was no doubt in the public mind that he was up to something.”

“Sarge – no matter how hard you try, George is not going to kiss you.”

“RUT RO!

zac is now a liberal moron!”

“Treebeard - Saddam had in place the ability to make WMD on short notice. He had a history of killing people indiscriminately, from the first day he was in power. (actually, since way before that) He was a murderous thug. That's how he lived his life since his early teens.

To say "he's got guns in this room and bullets in that room, but they're separate so they're not a deadly weapon" is not understanding how a killer uses weapons to kill people. He was under UN scrutiny since the treaty. He played dodge with the inspectors for years because he was shuffeling things around and making sure it wasn't obvious the weapons he had were in fact weapons.

To deny his intent is to deny everything we know about him.

If you want an explosion for proof, ok, you're right, he didn't technically have a wmd. With that logic, no "weapon" is a weapon until it's detonated.

A bit of common sense is necessary here. Saddam had WMD. He used them. He didn't label them as such, but he paid people to kill people and to invent weapons. That's what he did. That's all he knew. That's all fact.”

“Sarge – no matter how hard you try, George is not going to kiss you.

No, but I did shake his hand a couple of times and talked briefly with him. I kissed my hand afterwards and it did have a similar effect.”

“LOL”

“What I don't understand Sarge is why you're quoting the AP, one of those unreliable liberal news agencies, to back up your argument.”

“Geo - So you're saying the AP is backing up my argument?”

“Sarge, the news item you quote at the top of the thread is an AP news report. That's what that little (AP) means in the dateline.”

“So why are you quoting the unreliable liberal AP? That news report is obviously not accurate. The AP is part of "THE MEDIA."
Yeah, them!”

“Right, so you're saying they are backing up my argument?”

“Geo - What I use to make my decisions on what to believe is not necessarily what I use to convince others.

What did you eat for breakfast?

Now prove it.

Are you going to prove to me what you ate for breakfast using the same proof you used for yourself?

No.

Anyways, nice attempt at a dodge. I like how you guys use the personal attack mode to change the subject. It's quite predictable, really.”

“Oh, I see, you've selectively chosen something that you think supports your argument. Thanks.”

“Geo.

Please show me one post by you that you chose that selectively disproves your argument.

Any post on TT is ok.

Thanks.

I'll wait here.”

“Be right here while you pull that up.

Thanks.

... just be waiting here quietly ...”

“biological or chemical weapons and banned long-range missiles has been removed from 109 sites in Iraq

Look on the bright side, it could've been a lot worse. They could have removed banned stuff from a 110 sites.”

“Not going anywhere.

Go right ahead.”

“Geo? You still out there?”

“I don't go around posting stuff from sources I've dissed as being unreliable. So you just keep sitting there waiting.”

“Geo - Would you be ok if I posted stuff from sources that you have dissed as being unreliable instead?”