.:SonicBomb:.
    Login or Register
::  Home  ::  Videos  ::  Your Account  ::  Forums  ::  RSS Feed  ::
 
 
::Content::
  • Atomic
  • - Aviation
    - Aircraft
    - Military
    - Explosions
    - WW2
    - Various
    - Hi-Def
    - Photos

    - Wallpaper

    - Nuclear

    - WWI

    - WWII

    Advertisment
    Search
    Custom Search
    User Info
    Welcome, Anonymous
    Nickname
    Password
    (Register)
    Membership:
    Latest: TIN
    New Today: 2
    New Yesterday: 1
    Overall: 695

    People Online:
    Visitors: 0
    Members: 0
    Total: 0

    sonicbomb.com :: View topic - New Report Sheds Light On Saddam's Terror Links

    Forum FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

    View next topic
    View previous topic
    Post new topic Reply to topic  sonicbomb.com Forum Index » Political Arena
    Author Message
    Blake
    Tewa (5 mt)


    Joined: Jun 25, 2007
    Posts: 680
    Location: Florida

    PostPosted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 2:50 am Reply with quote

    This isn't going to be reported widely.

    "The Harmony files buttress the case that the decision to oust Saddam was the right one -- which makes it all the more puzzling that the Bush Administration is mum."

    Different Source

    I thought this was interesting also.
    View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
    fastfission
    Cherokee (3.8 mt)


    Joined: Apr 14, 2007
    Posts: 425
    Location: Arzamas-16

    PostPosted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 6:33 pm Reply with quote

    "It's true that the Pentagon report found no "smoking gun," i.e., a direct connection on a joint Iraq-al Qaeda operation"

    WSJ

    "The report does note that it is unclear whether Saddam would have authorized terrorism against American targets in the final months of his regime before Operation Iraqi Freedom five years ago. "The answer to the question of Saddam's will in the final months in power remains elusive," it says."

    NYS

    All pretty thin stuff considering the amount of documents (600,000) Harmony recovered.

    Therefore not surprising that the Republicans are not crowing about it. Any remaining credibility they have would soon evaporate.

    Fact is that without Bush's Iraq invasion disaster, America's global reputation would not have been in the gutter that is now, a whole lotta people, yours and theirs, wouldnt be dead, you would have had a few trillion more dollars to stave off your impending recession, and you would have had more guts to stand up to Saddam's far more dangerous neighbour who is building nukes as we speak.

    Iraq was a disaster. Admit it, move on and stop trying to justify the lies that the Bush Administration used to sell it to the rest of the world.

    FF
    View user's profile Send private message
    Graviton
    Yankee (13.5 mt)


    Joined: Sep 03, 2006
    Posts: 1550
    Location: USA

    PostPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 12:21 am Reply with quote

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/saudi/

    No WMDs?? Be careful. His people had plenty of time to ditch the chemical and bio stuff that remained, in the many months of drama during the on-and-off-again IAEA weapons inspections, and cat-and-mouse games that went with it. Saddam clearly played up the impression he had them to counter an Iranian threat he perceived.

    The Iraqi leader had also intended to restart the weapons program and had the means to do it.

    Quote:
    Even when it became clear that Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction, he tried to keep up the mystery.

    "He still had the engineers. The folks that he needed to reconstitute his program are still there,'' Piro said. "He wanted ... to reconstitute his entire WMD program.''

    http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23106538-663,00.html



    The Saudis financed the Pakistani nuclear weapons program, and also paid Saddam to develop his atomic weapons. Some evidence above.

    More:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_al_Khilewi

    Certainly this is not the first case of a massive action taken against WMDs of another nation. Recall that the Manhatten Project was entirely predicated upon the threat of Nazi Germany having nuclear weapons program, with outstanding references and insiders who knew the leaders of the German weapons program very closely.

    Obviously this attack on Iraq turned out to be a grand failure, since no outside nation has ever changed such conservative, paranoiacally conspiratorial, repressive Arab and Persian cultures. They hate each other so much that Muslims attack each other from different sects, if the West enters or not.
    View user's profile Send private message
    Teller25
    Cherokee (3.8 mt)


    Joined: Aug 22, 2007
    Posts: 254
    Location: Spain

    PostPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 4:56 pm Reply with quote

    First of all, even if the Iraqis had WMDS, which they didn’t, it doesn’t make any logical sense (to me at least) that the Father of the WMDs, who has a military budget many, many times greater than any nation, that spends billions of dollars annually simply for testing and assuring the reliability and readiness of her deployed WMDs, (not to mention the rest of the nuclear powers, who I don’t believe were attacked), had accused and attacked Iraq for allegedly possessing… whatever.

    Anyone who believes that was the cause of the war, is someone who probably also believes many things very easy.

    The truth is that Iraq wasn’t friendly to the U.S. (they didn’t sell ANY oil to the them), U.S. leaders had an idea that frankly looked really good on theory, and was a good plan, (but obviously failed in the practice)

    They thought “we are going to invade Iraq with some random pretext (people is scared to death anyway so the will believe anything), Iraq is weak and can’t put any sort of resistance, we will take it in three weeks, the Iraqis hate Saddam and will receive us as liberators, we are going to get her vast oil reserves, make our own accounts bigger (because they are part of the oil and defense companies), we are going to have exclusive control of those vital energy resources, first for our companies and then for those of our allies, and most importantly we will help to stop the threat posed by the incredible rise of China who could end U.S. supremacy on the first half of this century and, with the money we earn from the oil, the war will pay for itself and much more, and if it goes really good, we could do something like it on Iran, and the entire Middle East will be under our control and we would decide who gets the energy and who doesn’t and at what price.”

    But unfortunately for them things didn’t go as planned, they miscalculated the opposition from the Iraqis and those countries directly affected like China and Russia. Also as Grav points out the Arab culture is not easy to subdue, specially by an ally of Israel.

    U.S. leaders have been humiliated, they have got another Vietnam, they have destroyed the credibility and eroded the economy of their country, so now they have only two choices, either to pull out, waste all the money spent on the war and let Iraq and her strategic resources fell gradually under Iranian, Chinese and Russian influence, or take the risk of another war using their still formidable and disproportionate firepower to try to fulfill their dream of taking control of the Middle East by obliterating the hostile Iranian regime in such a degree that there is little left on the Middle east to oppose the U.S., trying to install another puppet regime taking control of the nation and further depriving the Chinese of oil.



    Last edited by Teller25 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 9:25 pm; edited 1 time in total
    View user's profile Send private message
    fastfission
    Cherokee (3.8 mt)


    Joined: Apr 14, 2007
    Posts: 425
    Location: Arzamas-16

    PostPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 9:10 pm Reply with quote

    Difficult to disagree with any of that as it goes.... Laughing

    FF
    View user's profile Send private message
    Graviton
    Yankee (13.5 mt)


    Joined: Sep 03, 2006
    Posts: 1550
    Location: USA

    PostPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 9:22 pm Reply with quote

    Quote:
    First of all, even if the Iraqis had WMDS, which they didn’t, it doesn’t make any logical sense (to me at least) that the Father of the WMDs, who has a military budget many, many times greater than any nation, that spends billions of dollars annually simply for testing and assuring the reliability and readiness of her deployed WMDs, (not to mention the rest of the nuclear powers, who I don’t believe were attacked), had accused and attacked Iraq for allegedly possessing… whatever.


    This is a screaming arrogance of the conspiracy spin artists to assume that they have the eyes of some supreme god knowing all, arbitrarily so to say, of their assumption that all is known as absolute fact in such a highly politicized issue, and everyone else is some sort of sucker. This is simply arrogance against many cases of evidence (including books) provided by former Iraqi and other officials who also defected, including the former top general of the Iraqi Air Force who wrote that the bio and chemical WMDs were secretly flown to Syria (where surviving members of the Hussein family now live under the protection of the Assad government).

    There are also facts of Saddam Hussein's plans to reconstitute the WMD program, supported by documents captured at the Iraqi defense ministry.
    View user's profile Send private message
    Graviton
    Yankee (13.5 mt)


    Joined: Sep 03, 2006
    Posts: 1550
    Location: USA

    PostPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 9:28 pm Reply with quote

    Quote:
    First of all, even if the Iraqis had WMDS, which they didn’t, it doesn’t make any logical sense (to me at least) that the Father of the WMDs, who has a military budget many, many times greater than any nation, that spends billions of dollars annually simply for testing and assuring the reliability and readiness of her deployed WMDs, (not to mention the rest of the nuclear powers, who I don’t believe were attacked), had accused and attacked Iraq for allegedly possessing… whatever.


    This is a screaming arrogance of the conspiracy spin artists to assume that they have the eyes of some supreme god knowing all, arbitrarily so to say, of their assumption that all is known as absolute fact in such a highly politicized issue, and everyone else is some sort of sucker. This is simply arrogance against many cases of evidence (including books) provided by former Iraqi and other officials who also defected, including the former top general of the Iraqi Air Force who wrote that the bio and chemical WMDs were secretly flown to Syria (where surviving members of the Hussein family now live under the protection of the Assad government).

    There are also facts of Saddam Hussein's plans to reconstitute the WMD program, supported by documents captured at the Iraqi defense ministry.

    This same sort of arrogance of those in denial of any rationality that a Hussein plan, supported by multiple sources of evidence of plans to reconstitute the WMD program, should be ignored as some sort of (false) proof of Hussein never having them. This is faulty thinking of the deniers who fervently believe they think they know everything in spite of multiple sources of evidence contradicting this.

    Some evidence from the non-partisan Duelfer investigative panel:

    Report: No WMD stockpiles in Iraq
    CIA: Saddam intended to make arms if sanctions ended

    Thursday, October 7, 2004 Posted: 10:50 AM EDT (1450 GMT)

    WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and had not begun any program to produce them, a CIA report concludes.

    In fact, the long-awaited report, authored by Charles Duelfer, who advises the director of central intelligence on Iraqi weapons, says Iraq's WMD program was essentially destroyed in 1991 and Saddam ended Iraq's nuclear program after the 1991 Gulf War.

    The Iraq Survey Group report, released Wednesday, is 1,200 to 1,500 pages long.

    The massive report does say, however, that Iraq worked hard to cheat on United Nations-imposed sanctions and retain the capability to resume production of weapons of mass destruction at some time in the future.

    "[Saddam] wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction when sanctions were lifted," a summary of the report says.

    Duelfer, testifying at a Senate hearing on the report, said his account attempts to describe Iraq's weapons programs "not in isolation but in the context of the aims and objectives of the regime that created and used them."

    "I also have insisted that the report include as much basic data as reasonable and that it be unclassified, since the tragedy that has been Iraq has exacted such a huge cost for so many for so long," Duelfer said.

    The report was released nearly two years ago to the day that President Bush strode onto a stage in Cincinnati and told the audience that Saddam Hussein's Iraq "possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons" and "is seeking nuclear weapons."

    "The danger is already significant and it only grows worse with time," Bush said in the speech delivered October 7, 2002. "If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?"

    Speaking on the campaign trail in Pennsylvania, Bush maintained Wednesday that the war was the right thing to do and that Iraq stood out as a place where terrorists might get weapons of mass destruction.

    "There was a risk, a real risk, that Saddam Hussein would pass weapons or materials or information to terrorist networks, and in the world after September the 11th, that was a risk we could not afford to take," Bush said.

    But Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, seized on the report as political ammunition against the Bush administration.

    "Despite the efforts to focus on Saddam's desires and intentions, the bottom line is Iraq did not have either weapon stockpiles or active production capabilities at the time of the war," Rockefeller said in a press release.

    "The report does further document Saddam's attempts to deceive the world and get out from under the sanctions, but the fact remains, the sanctions combined with inspections were working and Saddam was restrained."

    But British Prime Minister Tony Blair had just the opposite take on the information in the report, saying it demonstrated the U.N. sanctions were not working and Saddam was "doing his best" to get around them.

    He said the report made clear that there was "every intention" on Saddam's part to develop WMD and he "never had any intention of complying with U.N. resolutions."

    At a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee Wednesday, panel Chairman John Warner, R-Virginia, called the findings "significant."

    "While the ISG has not found stockpiles of WMD, the ISG and other coalition elements have developed a body of fact that shows that Saddam Hussein had, first, the strategic intention to continue to pursue WMD capabilities; two, created ambiguity about his WMD capabilities that he used to extract concessions in the international world of disclosure and discussion and negotiation.

    "He used it as a bargaining tactic and as a strategic deterrent against his neighbors and others."

    "As we speak, over 1,700 individuals -- military and civilian -- are in Iraq and Qatar, continuing to search for facts about Iraq's WMD programs," Warner said.

    But Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, ranking Democrat on the committee, said 1,750 experts have visited 1,200 potential WMD sites and have come up empty-handed.

    "It is important to emphasize that central fact because the administration's case for going to war against Iraq rested on the twin arguments that Saddam Hussein had existing stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction and that he might give weapons of mass destruction to al Qaeda to attack us -- as al Qaeda had attacked us on 9/11," Levin said.

    Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, asked Duelfer about the future likelihood of finding weapons of mass destruction, to which Duelfer replied, "The chance of finding a significant stockpile is less than 5 percent."

    Based in part on interviews with Saddam, the report concludes that the deposed Iraqi president wanted to acquire weapons of mass destruction because he believed they kept the United States from going all the way to Baghdad during the first Gulf War and stopped an Iranian ground offensive during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s, senior administration officials said.

    U.S. officials said the Duelfer report is "comprehensive," but they are not calling it a "final report" because there are still some loose ends to tie up.

    One outstanding issue, an official said, is whether Iraq shipped any stockpiles of weapons outside of the country. Another issue, he said, is mobile biological weapons labs, a matter on which he said "there is still useful work to do."

    Duelfer said Wednesday his teams found no evidence of a mobile biological weapons capability.

    The U.S. official said he believes Saddam decided to give up his weapons in 1991, but tried to conceal his nuclear and biological programs for as long as possible. Then in 1995, when his son-in-law Hussain Kamal defected with information about the programs, he gave those up, too.

    Iraq's nuclear program, which in 1991 was well-advanced, "was decaying" by 2001, the official said, to the point where Iraq was -- if it even could restart the program -- "many years from a bomb."

    CNN's Wayne Drash contributed to this report.
    View user's profile Send private message
    fastfission
    Cherokee (3.8 mt)


    Joined: Apr 14, 2007
    Posts: 425
    Location: Arzamas-16

    PostPosted: Tue Apr 15, 2008 7:08 am Reply with quote

    Might have, may have been able to, could have done, it was conceivable that....

    All pretty darn thin stuff.

    The excuse for war was "already has" and "ready to blow us all up in 45 mins"...

    Anyone spot the difference?Laughing

    Fast "Could conceivably win the lottery one day" Fission
    View user's profile Send private message
    Graviton
    Yankee (13.5 mt)


    Joined: Sep 03, 2006
    Posts: 1550
    Location: USA

    PostPosted: Tue Apr 15, 2008 3:42 pm Reply with quote

    fastfission wrote:
    Might have, may have been able to, could have done, it was conceivable that....

    All pretty darn thin stuff.

    The excuse for war was "already has" and "ready to blow us all up in 45 mins"...

    Anyone spot the difference?Laughing

    Fast "Could conceivably win the lottery one day" Fission


    Your language is incorrect, since there are books, documents, and testimony from various sources that contradict your views. You can make any reality you want to from ignoring wider evidence, yet there is alot of evidence there that has been confirmed by both non-partisan investigative councils of both the USA's Duelfer group, as well as the United Nations investigation led by David Kay.
    View user's profile Send private message
    Graviton
    Yankee (13.5 mt)


    Joined: Sep 03, 2006
    Posts: 1550
    Location: USA

    PostPosted: Tue Apr 15, 2008 3:45 pm Reply with quote

    fastfission wrote:
    Might have, may have been able to, could have done, it was conceivable that....

    All pretty darn thin stuff.

    The excuse for war was "already has" and "ready to blow us all up in 45 mins"...

    Anyone spot the difference?Laughing

    Fast "Could conceivably win the lottery one day" Fission


    Your language is incorrect, since there are books, documents, and testimony from various sources that contradict your views. You can make any reality you want to from ignoring wider evidence, yet there is alot of evidence there that has been confirmed by both non-partisan investigative councils of both the USA's Duelfer group, as well as the United Nations investigation led by David Kay.

    This is so typical of ideologs to vilify and willfully ignore alot of evidence that contradicts their own. Look at the sources: Saddam Hussein his self, his top Air Force commanding general, captured documents at the Iraqi Defense Minstry, the Duelfer committee, the Kay group of the UN, and much more.
    View user's profile Send private message
    Teller25
    Cherokee (3.8 mt)


    Joined: Aug 22, 2007
    Posts: 254
    Location: Spain

    PostPosted: Tue Apr 15, 2008 9:02 pm Reply with quote

    If the U.N. weapons inspectors are really desperate to find WMDs, and if they really want the GOOD STUFF not just plans on someone’s laptop, or some empty aluminum tubes, there are many sources like Google Earth were they could get the coordinates of the sites were they are produced, stored and deployed all around the world, have they tried Tatischievo, Valduc, Nellis, Dimona, and so on?, (they wont enter in one piece to any of those places though…). I am very far from being an anti nuclear activist but we must admit that U.N. inspections are a farce, made only to control small or stupid countries...

    To make the oil motive less super-obvious, they should have taken from any of the hundreds of WMDs storage sites on the U.S. some parts of weapons and plant them on Iraq to at least look less ridiculous and then say to the world, “do you see what they had this Iraqis, sons of …” But the administration couldn’t do even that.





    Last edited by Teller25 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 9:37 pm; edited 1 time in total
    View user's profile Send private message
    Graviton
    Yankee (13.5 mt)


    Joined: Sep 03, 2006
    Posts: 1550
    Location: USA

    PostPosted: Tue Apr 15, 2008 9:20 pm Reply with quote

    Teller, you have an active imagination that ignores other aspects of multiple investigations, and not just with the UN.

    Cartoons only tell the story of the artist, and not necessarily the real or whole story.

    Not even the Iraqis are profiting from oil as they wish. USA hasn't even profited a bit from them ... ending with an approaching trillion dollars debt on the Iraq War.
    View user's profile Send private message
    fastfission
    Cherokee (3.8 mt)


    Joined: Apr 14, 2007
    Posts: 425
    Location: Arzamas-16

    PostPosted: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:15 pm Reply with quote

    Grav - you double posted twice in the one thread.

    Usually it only takes someone do this once before they get the "please don't double post, use edit function" speech from Grav.

    So for the avoidance of doubt:

    Grav, please don't double post, use the edit function. X2. Laughing

    FF
    View user's profile Send private message
    Graviton
    Yankee (13.5 mt)


    Joined: Sep 03, 2006
    Posts: 1550
    Location: USA

    PostPosted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 4:14 pm Reply with quote

    fastfission wrote:
    Grav - you double posted twice in the one thread.

    Usually it only takes someone do this once before they get the "please don't double post, use edit function" speech from Grav.

    So for the avoidance of doubt:

    Grav, please don't double post, use the edit function. X2. Laughing

    FF


    Please, no outbursts now, and heed explanation ....

    I can assure you I never intentionally double-posted for the sake of it. In fact, I replied with quotations to specific statements from different users. Also, a longer response including a cited article will not post if the length is too long (and which varies highly in tolerance per day), therefore requiring them to be broken up into pieces -- likely the faulty design of the forum, known for its programming bugs in phpBB.

    If people can't handle this in some sort of hopping outburst of the dreaded "double-posting," I suggest they crawl into bed for a minute and try to start their day anew, with a better attitude.

    Ho, ho, ho.
    View user's profile Send private message
    fastfission
    Cherokee (3.8 mt)


    Joined: Apr 14, 2007
    Posts: 425
    Location: Arzamas-16

    PostPosted: Sat May 03, 2008 12:27 am Reply with quote

    Another meaningless quote from this newbie. He posted another one earlier in the Political Arena.

    That's strike 2 Sonic.

    If he does it again, please delete his account.

    FF
    View user's profile Send private message
    Display posts from previous:   
    Post new topic Reply to topic

    View next topic
    View previous topic
    You cannot post new topics in this forum
    You cannot reply to topics in this forum
    You cannot edit your posts in this forum
    You cannot delete your posts in this forum
    You cannot vote in polls in this forum


    Powered by phpBB © 2001 phpBB Group
    | Privacy Policy || Contact us |

    Page Generation: 0.22 Seconds
    :: In the future we will all be robots ::