Warning, Iraq post. WMD? Nahhhh.....

[rakkasan]

http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents-docex/Iraq/Audio-transcripts/DOCEX Saddam 030306.pdf

This is a recorded meeting where Saddam, Tariq Aziz & others talk about what the UN weapons inspectors really know & they try to figure out what they will be looking for. Aziz thought that the UN Inspectors didn't have a clue, but Lt Gen Husayn, had a different view. Lieutenant General Husayn (don't know what his capacity is) lays down the truth (pick up his qoute in the middle of page 7):


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[Husayn] Thanks, Sir. I did not want to speak so openly were it not for your Excellency's raising and explaining the issue, and the statement by Tariq that we produced biological weapons.

We did not explain all we have. They can raise against us now or after one year or two three issues on the subject of the missiles. One is the place. The second is our work, which they don't know, on the subject of the missiles. Sir, this is my job and I know it very well. I have been at it for some time and it is not easy. The issues are much more dangerous than what they know. And I will explain them to you now.

On the subject of the chemical file, which we believe they will raise, we think that the biological file is the only problem. No, Sir, I believe that they have full details on the rockets, as well, if they want to raise them, as I said, because we have not finished with it.

It is possible, Sir, they have a problem that is a great deal bigger than the biological file: The types of weapons, the materials we imported, the product which we told them about, and the degree of their use. All of that was not correct. And all of them do not know. We did not say that we used them against Iran and we did not say the amount of chemical weapons we produced. We also did not say anything about the type of chemical weapons and the important materials in reality.

Therefore, Sir, if they want to raise problems the biological field will not be an excuse. No, Sir, I differ and I must be frank to you, I differ completely on this subject. They want one section after another. At present, they have not pressured us and we did not announce it.

Sir, I will go back and say it is better for us to decide whether to announce or not to announce it.

On the nuclear file, Sir, I mean on the biological file, we also differ with them, not only on the 17 tons; no, we have a well-known quantity. We have teams; a team working in the same direction while another does not know.

How could they not know, if they wanted? There are means for knowing that. We have materials that we imported from the United States and they know their quantity. We also have materials imported from Europe and they know their quantity also.

Therefore, Sir, if someone wants to create a problem, we have to be careful to find out: Does he want to make peace or create a new relationship quietly? No, Sir, I differ here.

On the nuclear file, Sir, we are saying that we disclosed everything? No, we have undeclared problems in the nuclear field, and I believe that they know them. Some teams work and no one knows some of them. Sir, I am sorry for speaking so clearly. Everything is over. But, did they know? No, Sir, they did not know; not all the methods, not all the means, not all the scientists, and not all the places.

Frankly, yes some activities were discovered. Even when we are here and your Excellency is aware that the biological file is the same, no, Sir, the biological file is the least and I am sorry to say the most insignificant. We must begin to talk with them, Sir, because the 17 tons are not the problem, but the thousands of tons here and the thousands of tons there and where did they go, how they were produced, and how they were used.
Really, Sir, we must be frank so that the resolution will be straightforward, and not biological in the afternoon, missiles the following morning, and nuclear the day after.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
continued on page 9, mid page
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Our problems, Sir, will continue even if we admitted. As long as we do not admit, it will be plotting, Sir, in my opinion because it is not correct and we cannot say that this is correct that we admit the biological file. He could raise against us the items we bought from the United States; materials for the chemical weapons.

With just this one, the biological file, Sir, is very small.

He said that we admitted the different types of weapons. We did not admit them. We said that we tried to discuss them, but the fact is, it is not possible, Sir, under our present situation, to say that this is not correct. No, it is better to say that it is correct because the time to end the problem with Iraq will be a long one. This is how I see it, regrettably, Sir, but this is the fact. Thank you.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[rakkasan]

http://abcnews.go.com/International/IraqCoverage/story?id=1734490&page=1

What can I say, I'm a few weeks ahead of major news, not bad for a stupid southern redneck.:yelrotflm

Anyway, Bin Laden is an asshair away from being tied to Saddam & it looks as if Saddam might have assisted Bin Laden attack the Saudi National Guard Barracks.

From the above post, Lt Gen Husayn suggests that Saddam has been WMD's, and another document says the same, including nuclear.

Oh, let's not forget to mention that Saddam did in fact buy the French Goverment, too.

For those of you who dislike GWB, you might want to begin to think of all the reasons why you do, because against all odds, he just might have had more than a few things right. Not all, but a hell of a lot more than was first thought....

 

[NDBoost]

so this basically is saying that husayn and laden were together? i dont get it..

 

[rakkasan]

so this basically is saying that husayn and laden were together? i dont get it..

Yes, the documents are showing that Bin Laden & Saddam did talk about establishing an "operational relationship" together. While the exact operations aren't discussed, ....."in Saudi Arabia, it is interesting to note that eight months after the meeting — on November 13, 1995 — terrorists attacked Saudi National Guard Headquarters in Riyadh, killing 5 U.S. military advisors. The militants later confessed on Saudi TV to having been trained by Osama bin Laden."

Lt General Husayn, one of Saddam's generals, made the statement in post #1 at one of Saddams staff meetings. He openly states that they are intentionally hiding WMD's, and lots of it. The 4th document discussed in ABC's article reinforces this, but it also mentions the extent that Iraq went thru to hide the WMD's (Reports, research, computer files, ect.)

 

[NDBoost]

oh good, thank god. Lets roast him now

 

[GrimJack]

As I've been saying all along, he had WMD, and the US military knows this, because the US *gave* them to him before he was a threat to America.

The USA has a habit of doing this. They supported Russia to combat Hitler, then communism was a problem. They supported drug lords in Vietnam to combat communism, then drugs became a problem. At the same time they were providing support for 'freedom fighters' in Afganistan, who were fighting against the evil CCCP - until the CCCP fell apart. So they stopped sending any support.

What do you think would happen if I went overseas, built an organization capable of fighting against a war machine 100 times it's size, paid all it's bills for 25 years, supplied it with food, equipment, & information, then suddenly took away all it's targets and support? You think maybe that organization would come looking for me with a gleam in it's eye? I can guarantee you that any group trained like this doesn't just fold up and send it's individual members home to become farmers again.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again. What you hear from the politicians has absolutely zero resemblance to what is really happening within the military or intelligence community. And anyone who thinks that the figurehead leader of ANY nation is really responsible for more than trying to make the populace accept what the government is doing is seriously misled.

Not that this is a bad thing, someone has to sit on the hot seat, and I'd rather it wasn't me.

 

[rakkasan]

As I've been saying all along, he had WMD, and the US military knows this, because the US *gave* them to him before he was a threat to America.

The USA has a habit of doing this. They supported Russia to combat Hitler, then communism was a problem. They supported drug lords in Vietnam to combat communism, then drugs became a problem. At the same time they were providing support for 'freedom fighters' in Afganistan, who were fighting against the evil CCCP - until the CCCP fell apart. So they stopped sending any support.

What do you think would happen if I went overseas, built an organization capable of fighting against a war machine 100 times it's size, paid all it's bills for 25 years, supplied it with food, equipment, & information, then suddenly took away all it's targets and support? You think maybe that organization would come looking for me with a gleam in it's eye? I can guarantee you that any group trained like this doesn't just fold up and send it's individual members home to become farmers again.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again. What you hear from the politicians has absolutely zero resemblance to what is really happening within the military or intelligence community. And anyone who thinks that the figurehead leader of ANY nation is really responsible for more than trying to make the populace accept what the government is doing is seriously misled.

Not that this is a bad thing, someone has to sit on the hot seat, and I'd rather it wasn't me.

I understand your position, but it loses it's luster when you think that we could put Great Britain, Isreal, Japan, ect in the same catagory yet they same countries took different paths. True, the US gave Iraq Chemical munitions & Afganistan Stinger Missiles, but to my knowledge, that was it. Had Iraq & the USSR not tried to sieze neighboring countries ports, none of this would have come to what it has today.

 

[GrimJack]

Ok, I have to ask. Are you an 'armchair' expert, or are your ideas based in fact?

I'll admit right up front, I'm extrapolating from what I know of other countries, as all the people I know were ex members of special forces like the British SAS - well, as ex as you can get after having been a member.

It's also out of date by quite a few years, as these guys rarely like to talk about this stuff until they get old enough that they don't care about the penalties for breaking secrecy anymore, they're going to die from old age anyhow.

Talk to some of these guys at the local vets club for a couple weeks, and I'll bet dollars to donuts you'll have a *very* different view of the world. Not a view thats better or worse, either, just different. The first thing you realize is that there are some very bad things happening in the world, by people on both sides of the fence. The scond thing you realize is that it really doesn't matter, because there is literally nothing we can do about it - nobody is really in 'control' of it.

 

[rakkasan]

I'm merely reading the translated Iraqi Documents. There's new documents being released daily, to read them, go here & click on the "operation Iraqi Freedom Documents" on the top right hand side of the webpage. It has transcripts from state meetings, Iraqi intel, audio & video captured in Iraq. There are lots of direct qoutes from Saddam, Tariq Aziz & others.

Some of the stuff is not as out of date as you think. While I can't find the document without a good degree of difficulty, there is one were one of the persons in the meeting refers to GWB "I ordered our troops into Iraq" speech. My contention is that these documents wil go a long, long way to either proving or rebuting the justification of Operation Iraqi Freedom. That is important to me. While I think that the US is due some critizism, I also believe that we are due some appologies, too.

You'll have to decide if the documents are factual or not, but I think they are. If they are factual, they're very damning in my eyes. Read them & let me know what you think.

Ok, I have to ask. Are you an 'armchair' expert, or are your ideas based in fact?

I'll admit right up front, I'm extrapolating from what I know of other countries, as all the people I know were ex members of special forces like the British SAS - well, as ex as you can get after having been a member.

It's also out of date by quite a few years, as these guys rarely like to talk about this stuff until they get old enough that they don't care about the penalties for breaking secrecy anymore, they're going to die from old age anyhow.

Talk to some of these guys at the local vets club for a couple weeks, and I'll bet dollars to donuts you'll have a *very* different view of the world. Not a view thats better or worse, either, just different. The first thing you realize is that there are some very bad things happening in the world, by people on both sides of the fence. The scond thing you realize is that it really doesn't matter, because there is literally nothing we can do about it - nobody is really in 'control' of it.

 

[GrimJack]

oops - when I mentioned 'out of date' I was talking about my info, not yours. Everyone that I have talked to is referring to stuff that happened shortly after WWII, though if you change the names, dates, and places it reads awfully similar.

Even if the docs you linked to are genuine (and they may very well be) I don't think they will give you a very realistic view of what was going on.

Essentially, I'm pointing out a few things:
- You don't know what happened over there, or why, and there is no reliable way to find out.
- The government won't release information that could get them in trouble willingly.
- Speculating on why this or that happened, and whether or not it was justified, based on the information available to the public is just going to make you frustrated.

IMO, it's a fact that goverments, military, and intelligence communities all over the world have to make decisions that the public would crucify them for. The public likes to feel that the world is a generally a good, secure place, that there is no reason *ever* to shoot women and children, and that it's always the other side that commits atrocity during wartime.

 

[GrimJack]

PS: As for whether the actions in Iraq / Kuwait / etc were justified, I really don't believe any of us will know. Two things come to mind - history is written by the victors... and in any case, it's water under the bridge.

You should never try to second guess your military after the fact... they operate in the present with incomplete intelligence to the best of their ability. If you try to hold them accountable for the way they should have done it, you're just crippling their ability to operate. Sure, they may make mistakes, but that's the reality of operating in wartime.

 

[rakkasan]

PS: As for whether the actions in Iraq / Kuwait / etc were justified, I really don't believe any of us will know. Two things come to mind - history is written by the victors... and in any case, it's water under the bridge.

You should never try to second guess your military after the fact... they operate in the present with incomplete intelligence to the best of their ability. If you try to hold them accountable for the way they should have done it, you're just crippling their ability to operate. Sure, they may make mistakes, but that's the reality of operating in wartime.

I couldn't have said it better myself.....

 

[Nick M]

As I've been saying all along, he had WMD, and the US military knows this, because the US *gave* them to him before he was a threat to America.

The USA has a habit of doing this. They supported Russia to combat Hitler, then communism was a problem. They supported drug lords in Vietnam to combat communism, then drugs became a problem. At the same time they were providing support for 'freedom fighters' in Afganistan, who were fighting against the evil CCCP - until the CCCP fell apart. So they stopped sending any support.

Well not really. He was always a threat to us, and we always watched him. We (the US) has a vested intrest in ideoligies of the ruler and circumstance, not the country. This nation started as bitter enemies of Great Britain. So we should still be enemies? Of course not. That was then, this is now.

We didnt support Russia, but we did align ourselves with Great Britain and the Soviet Union in the intrest of stopping the current threat of the world. They fought their front, we fought ours. That is how you play the game. Perhaps we should have just let Hitler win, maybe that is what you wanted?

What drug lords in Viet Nam did we support? That is just funny. Perhaps you are thinking of the contras and Sandinistas? The minute communism started to spread, the minute we came to help stop the spread.

One more thing, go look up some basic WMD info, such as ingredients. Much of it you might think is common. So we should not allow Hussein to buy pesticides?

 

[GrimJack]

Nick, I think you're misunderstanding the meaning of my posts here.

I'm not trying to point out anything that the USA has been doing wrong.

Really, what I'm saying is that the general populace should keep their snout out of the country's business - unless they are willing to step up and be part of the solution.

It's easy to point fingers at the soldier on TV who killed a young mother, especially if you've never seen any combat time, x2 if you've never had to face people who think you are an invader. The news never seems to explain when the soldier's three best friends were killed the week before by another woman using the same tactics.

I happen to know for a fact that my government knows more about the situation than I do, and that they aren't willing to explain it all to everyone in the country. I'm ok with this, and trust that there are people employed by the government that are capable of making the best decision possible given the circumstances.

And most importantly, I don't think we should haul those people in and roast their ass when the situation goes to shit.

PS: Regarding my historical references... remember that history is written by the victors. As the USA hasn't lost many battles in the last 200 years, the history that's available to you is going to be ... slightly different than what the rest of the world reads. Most of what I refer to is from the vets themselves, in personal conversation, not written accounts - and oddly enough it doesn't quite match up to what the history books say.

 

[bigaaron]

There are no wmd's in Iraq and there never were. This is all fabricated bs to try and save face for Bush, who now has a very low approval rating, which he deserves. We are fighting a bs war, and we should have been out of there a long time ago. Bush makes poor decisions, and sounds like an idiot when he speaks. Who cares if Osama and Saddam were in it together. Bush had to retaliate for 9/11 in order to look like he was still in control. He picked the best country to attack with the biggest asshole leader, so he would have popular support. And Saddam was already on the hit list from his dad's failed war.

 

[rakkasan]

There are no wmd's in Iraq and there never were. This is all fabricated bs to try and save face for Bush, who now has a very low approval rating, which he deserves. We are fighting a bs war, and we should have been out of there a long time ago. Bush makes poor decisions, and sounds like an idiot when he speaks. Who cares if Osama and Saddam were in it together. Bush had to retaliate for 9/11 in order to look like he was still in control. He picked the best country to attack with the biggest asshole leader, so he would have popular support. And Saddam was already on the hit list from his dad's failed war.

LOL, thanks for your input CNN :biglaugh:

 

[NDBoost]

There are no wmd's in Iraq and there never were. This is all fabricated bs to try and save face for Bush, who now has a very low approval rating, which he deserves. We are fighting a bs war, and we should have been out of there a long time ago. Bush makes poor decisions, and sounds like an idiot when he speaks. Who cares if Osama and Saddam were in it together. Bush had to retaliate for 9/11 in order to look like he was still in control. He picked the best country to attack with the biggest asshole leader, so he would have popular support. And Saddam was already on the hit list from his dad's failed war.

thread failure in 3..2....1...
in all honesty although i may not agree 100% with the reasons why we are there. I do however support the troops they are there, lets finish the fight and get em home and put this shit in the past

 

[Nick M]

There are no wmd's in Iraq and there never were. This is all fabricated bs to try and save face for Bush,

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998.

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Joe Lieberman (D-CT), John McCain (Rino-AZ) and others, Dec. 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I b elieve that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.


"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weap ons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002.

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002.

"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his contin ued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

PS: Regarding my historical references... remember that history is written by the victors

That is a tired cliche' that is untrue repeated by those who lost and want to rewrite history.

And Saddam was already on the hit list from his dad's failed war.

Desert Storm was a failure? So we liberated Kuwait in 2003? Thanks, you learn something new everyday. I love it when the left tries to be logical when they are really emoting. What next? Are you going to quote Michael Moore?

 

[GrimJack]

That is a tired cliche' that is untrue repeated by those who lost and want to rewrite history.

LOL - how about we agree to disagree here? I should point out that I really have no wish to rewrite history, even the bits that aren't 100% accurate, and I've never been on the losing side.

 

[bigaaron]

"Originally Posted by bigaaron
There are no wmd's in Iraq and there never were. This is all fabricated bs to try and save face for Bush"

I meant from 9/11 on.