Following Iraq's bioweapons trail

[Hunter368]

Originally Posted by Civettone

- Iraq didn't have WMDs since the late 90s.
- French companies may have smuggled some stuff in. This is not the same as saying French government was behind it. Corruption can be found everywhere.
- France and almost the entire world was against the war because it was illegitimate, as it was without a UNSC authorisation.

Kris

I would say that there is a few Vets here that would not agree with you Kris about Iraq not having WMD.

UN authorisation? When "has" UN authorized an invasion? LOL

UN is useless, spinless.......without balls. UN sucks

UN is / was a good thought, when it was made, but in it's current state makes it almost totally useless. Thats why no one listens to it or cares about it.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Hunter368

I would say that there is a few Vets here that would not agree with you Kris about Iraq not having WMD.

Does not matter. Seeing things with your own eyes is not worth a damn when it does not agree with his agenda. That is why I will not participate in this thread as well.

It is not worth the headaches or the muscles in my fingers used to type.

[Hunter368]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Does not matter. Seeing things with your own eyes is not worth a damn when it does not agree with his agenda. That is why I will not participate in this thread as well.

It is not worth the headaches or the muscles in my fingers used to type.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Civettone

- Iraq didn't have WMDs since the late 90s.


Kris

FOXNews.com - Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq - U.S. Senate
The Sound of Silence: Iraq's WMDs Found - Joe Mariani - MensNewsDaily.com™
WMDs Found in Iraq - HUMAN EVENTS
WorldNetDaily: Hundreds of WMDs discovered in Iraq

[Hunter368]

Cough cough cough!!!!

Joe is the man!



Not to mention it really does not matter whether there was WMD or not in Iraq......it was believed that there was a very strong chance there was. Saddam refused to allow full excess to UN inspectors.....leading the world to believe there very likely was WMD or why not let the inspectators in.

Saddam has to hold a great deal of responsibleity for the invasion, you can't just blame USA for being wrong Kris.

[Erich]

the question arises and is always open for debate and Les has been right on the monies along with Chris, what consitutes a WMD ? ........ not necesssairy something nucleur.

we already knew in the 70's and early 80's what the little shrimp of a plo leader wanted and begged for from the big countries with Saudia financial backing. funny he was sent materials for construction but did not have the means to put an arsenal together as his entourage was made up of neen-ka poops. Will tell you Saddam and the enemy Persians were watching closely and waiting to see if arafatty could pop a big one on Israel so they could give a go and try

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Hunter368

Not to mention it really does not matter whether there was WMD or not in Iraq......it was believed that there was a very strong chance there was. Saddam refused to allow full excess to UN inspectors.....leading the world to believe there very likely was WMD or why not let the inspectators in.

Saddam has to hold a great deal of responsibleity for the invasion, you can't just blame USA for being wrong Kris.

That's the whole point - Hussein, just to save face allowed his country to be invaded - this ultimetly led to his demise - all becuase of his own stupidity.

The same could be of the Taliban - they had their nice cozy f#cked-up Islamic shithole - all they had to do in turn over Bin Laden...

BTW Kris I work on a military installation and met DOZENS of US Army and Air Force personnel who have seen WMDs in Iraq. I don't care what your reported friend says, there were WMDs found. Not to the extent we were led to believe, but they were there and these folks (who range from Army Privates to Air Force Lt Cols) who told me this have no reason to lie.

[Erich]

Fly I have a cousin whose son is over in Iraq as a ranger and a hunter of the items in question, besides on another personal note interviewed two of my ex-BSA eagle scouts that both served in the army first tour, one has gone back, they both have pics of wmd's that were buried in iraq.

more and more evidence is pouring in while the media ignores nor cares

[FLYBOYJ]

Agree....

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The media does not report on these events because it goes against there agenda.

[Hunter368]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

The media does not report on these events because it goes against there agenda.

I will play devils advocate before Kris does. Why is it not on their agenda to report the truth?

Not all media outlets are leftwing.

[mkloby]

Civettone - I beg you to consider this. Many personnel can't discuss many very important things that happened in Iraq. The press is also not privy to this information. It isn't reported. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. There are some instances of media reporting NBC weapons, but it is for the most part severely under-reported.

You can debate the legitimacy of the Iraq war - that's a valid argument. Many Americans would agree with you. Here's something to consider about the UN. The United Nations is an organization comprised of many different nation-states, which all have divergent interests. If the UN takes a course of action that a member state believes is very detrimental to it's own future - why is it illegitimate to act in defiance of that organization?

Many Americans do not give a damn about the UN. It's comprised of states, all attempting to to what's best for their own self-interests, which is how the world has always worked. Except now, the UN has this stamp of legitimacy placed upon it, as if it has some sort of actual power in being. Americans won't give up one bit of their sovereignty to a multi-national body that does not care one bit about American interests. Furthermore, the UN can be used as a weapon against the US by other member states that oppose US interests. The French didn't oppose our war in Iraq on the grounds that the UN didn't give it their stamp of approval, they opposed it because our actions in Iraq were detrimental to their national interests. No nation-state is altruistic. None at all.
The whole concept of the UN, as it applies to int'l relations, is flawed. It disregards reality. That defunct organization is likely to go the way of the League anyway.

[Hunter368]

mkloby,

I like your post first off. I do have a question for you, we both agree UN as it stands sucks. But do we (world) not need some organization to try and keep peace? Without it, it would lead to "might = right".

Then respectfully I am sure you could understand most of the worlds unhappyness with USA ruling the roast without anyone to answer to.

Even I who am a Canadian and who likes the USA would be not thrilled about that idea. Should there not always be "some" check stops in place vs aggressive nations or nations who hold vastly more power than others.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by mkloby

Civettone - I beg you to consider this. Many personnel can't discuss many very important things that happened in Iraq. The press is also not privy to this information. It isn't reported. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. There are some instances of media reporting NBC weapons, but it is for the most part severely under-reported.

You can debate the legitimacy of the Iraq war - that's a valid argument. Many Americans would agree with you. Here's something to consider about the UN. The United Nations is an organization comprised of many different nation-states, which all have divergent interests. If the UN takes a course of action that a member state believes is very detrimental to it's own future - why is it illegitimate to act in defiance of that organization?

Many Americans do not give a damn about the UN. It's comprised of states, all attempting to to what's best for their own self-interests, which is how the world has always worked. Except now, the UN has this stamp of legitimacy placed upon it, as if it has some sort of actual power in being. Americans won't give up one bit of their sovereignty to a multi-national body that does not care one bit about American interests. Furthermore, the UN can be used as a weapon against the US by other member states that oppose US interests. The French didn't oppose our war in Iraq on the grounds that the UN didn't give it their stamp of approval, they opposed it because our actions in Iraq were detrimental to their national interests. No nation-state is altruistic. None at all.
The whole concept of the UN, as it applies to int'l relations, is flawed. It disregards reality. That defunct organization is likely to go the way of the League anyway.

IT DOESN'T GET MUCH CLEARER THAN THAT!

[Erich]

ah but Hunter who will come if the UN does not stand up and proceed ? well it will be one unified world in time under a monster in time but for now it appears the US/England and whomever have to be the police force in the world which is utter nonsense

anway dig the martial arts link you provided as well

mk good thought processes and actually if we have to understand too that Kris does get media sources from other than our own. I've watched Deutsche Welle over and over again though I do not always agree with what I see and hear from them it does provide other details not often seen. I still do not agree with the liberal bias but that is ok

let's face it gents/ladies we are going to hear what the media wants us to hear and in many cases there is privelged information not given to them even after pressing the questions, the same ones home time after time, they just will not be answered ........

wish I had about 1500 of these guys from old to go seek and destroy through Baghdad at night



the Warrior lives !!