Command and Conquer: Renegade Official Forums - RDF feed
type: channel
description: C&C: Renegade --> Dying since 2003™, resurrected in 2024!
items: The WMD and terrorist ties that didn't exist...or did they?

The WMD and terrorist ties that didn't exist...or did they?
type: item
description: http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archive\200410\SPE20041004a.html I wonder, if and when these documents are proven to be authentic, the "OMG THERE WAS NO WMD OR TIES TO AL-QAEDA BEFORE 9/11" folks will eat crow cnsnews.com Exclusive: Saddam Possessed WMD, Had Extensive Terror Ties By Scott Wheeler CNSNews.com Staff Writer October 04, 2004 (CNSNews.com) - Iraqi intelligence documents, confiscated by U.S. forces and obtained by CNSNews.com, show numerous efforts by Saddam Hussein's regime to work with some of the world's most notorious terror organizations, including al Qaeda, to target Americans. They demonstrate that Saddam's government possessed mustard gas and anthrax, both considered weapons of mass destruction, in the summer of 2000, during the period in which United Nations weapons inspectors were not present in Iraq. And the papers show that Iraq trained dozens of terrorists inside its borders. One of the Iraqi memos contains an order from Saddam for his intelligence service to support terrorist attacks against Americans in Somalia. The memo was written nine months before U.S. Army Rangers were ambushed in Mogadishu by forces loyal to a warlord with alleged ties to al Qaeda. Other memos provide a list of terrorist groups with whom Iraq had relationships and considered available for terror operations against the United States. Among the organizations mentioned are those affiliated with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Ayman al-Zawahiri, two of the world's most wanted terrorists. Zarqawi is believed responsible for the kidnapping and beheading of several American civilians in Iraq and claimed responsibility for a series of deadly bombings in Iraq Sept. 30. Al-Zawahiri is the top lieutenant of al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden, allegedly helped plan the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist strikes on the U.S., and is believed to be the voice on an audio tape broadcast by Al-Jazeera television Oct. 1, calling for attacks on U.S. and British interests e…
creator: Blazer
date: 2004-10-06T20:14:14-00:00

The WMD and terrorist ties that didn't exist...or did they?
type: item
description: http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200410\NAT20041004b.html cnsnews.com Journalistic Methodology Used to Report Details of Saddam's Terror Ties By David Thibault CNSNews.com Information Services October 04, 2004 Forty-two pages of photocopied official Iraqi Intelligence Service documents, some hand-written and some typed in 1993, serve as the basis for Scott Wheeler's article, entitled, "Saddam Possessed WMD, Had Extensive Terror Ties." The memos reflect communication between the Iraqi Intelligence Service and Saddam Hussein, by way of his top assistant, the secretary to the president. Tables indicating the Iraqi regime's possession of mustard gas and anthrax in the summer of 2000 are included in the documents, as is a list of 92 individuals believed to have been trained inside Iraq for terrorism operations. -- Wheeler obtained documents from a longstanding, reliable source who had provided unassailed information for articles previously published. The source is a senior U.S. government official, but not a political appointee and demanded anonymity before furnishing the documents and speaking with CNSNews.com about their importance. At no time in the investigation for this article were the Bush administration, the Bush re-election campaign, the Republican National Committee, the campaign of Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry or the Democratic National Committee consulted. -- Two translators, working separately and independently of each other, translated the Arabic documents into English for CNSNews.com. -- There are no hand-writing samples to which the documents can be compared for forensic analysis and authentication. However, three additional experts, a former weapons inspector with the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) who demanded anonymity before speaking with CNSNews.com; Bruce Tefft, a retired CIA counter-terrorism official with heavy experience dealing with Iraq; and Laurie Mylroie, Iraq expert and advisor to then-199…
creator: Blazer
date: 2004-10-06T20:16:02-00:00

The WMD and terrorist ties that didn't exist...or did they?
type: item
description: (English Translation) In the name of Allah the compassionate the kind (The Eagle/Iraqi slogan) Top secret, personal & urgent Republic of Iraq The bureau of presidency The secretary Issue # 425/ K Date: Jan.18th.1993 Rajab 25th.1413 Hijri Esquire Comrade Ali Al-Reeh Al-Sheikh/ a member of The Arabian Bureau-Ba’ath party leadership. Subject: instruction In a continuity with our former book#7184/K on Dec.20th.1992, its decided that the party should move to hunt the Americans who are on Arabian land, especially in Somalia, by using Arabian elements, or Asian (Muslims) or friends. Take the necessary steps Stay well for struggle Signature of the president’s secretary Jan.18th.1993 Copy to: The General Director of the intelligence system/ The same purpose mentioned above that concerned your duties (Not clear writing) The two gentlemen; the deputy and … M4 to study the ways to executive the instructions Inform me in person ASAP Another (different) not clear signature Jan.18th
creator: Blazer
date: 2004-10-06T20:17:53-00:00

The WMD and terrorist ties that didn't exist...or did they?
type: item
description: Ah yes, good 'ole cybercast news service. Before they publish the documents, I don't care what they say the documents say. This story means nothing if they won't release those papers.
creator: SuperFlyingEngi
date: 2004-10-07T00:31:24-00:00

The WMD and terrorist ties that didn't exist...or did they?
type: item
description: "To protect against the Iraqi intelligence documents being altered or misrepresented elsewhere on the Internet, CNSNews.com has decided to publish only the first of the 42 pages in Arabic, along with the English translation. Portions of some of the other memos in translated form are also being published to accompany this report. Credentialed journalists and counter-terrorism experts seeking to view the 42 pages of Arabic documents or to challenge their authenticity may make arrangements to do so at CNSNews.com headquarters in Alexandria, Va"
creator: Blazer
date: 2004-10-07T08:49:46-00:00

The WMD and terrorist ties that didn't exist...or did they?
type: item
description: Quote: They demonstrate that Saddam's government possessed mustard gas and anthrax, both considered weapons of mass destruction Is that serious ? In 1914, germany had already mass destruction weapons so... Anthrax ? Hmmm, just use email and forget US postal. Mass destruction weapons are atomic missiles... not stupid old chemical stuff.
creator: Renardin6
date: 2004-10-07T12:53:47-00:00

The WMD and terrorist ties that didn't exist...or did they?
type: item
description: tell that to the millions that have died from various nerve agents. Quote: Mass destruction weapons are atomic missiles... not stupid old chemical stuff. That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Sure atomic/nuclear weapons are flashy and awe-inspiring, but compared to a barrage of chemical artillery shells, the kill count isn't that different, they just die faster. Chemical weapons also have the major advantage of being highly controlable, they either dispearse through natural breakdown or can be neutralized with the appropriate counter-agent which are also deliverable by artillery shell/bomb.
creator: liberator
date: 2004-10-07T14:07:34-00:00

The WMD and terrorist ties that didn't exist...or did they?
type: item
description: Renardin6 Mass destruction weapons are atomic missiles... not stupid old chemical stuff. Uhh.. ok. Atomic weapons may have massive destruction capabilities, but WMD simply means the death/injury toll has the potential to be large. Chemical and Biological weapons fit into this category. I will have to admit though, I have never heard of this news source prior to Crimson posting this in the pitts forum. Hence I am taking this an an unreliable (not necissarily meaning inept or false) source until something is printed a known news agency.
creator: warranto
date: 2004-10-07T14:55:06-00:00

The WMD and terrorist ties that didn't exist...or did they?
type: item
description: Hmmm, Iraq had WMDs, I think not, the headline in todays Guardian: Quote: 1,625 UN and US inspectors spent more than two years searching hundreds of sites at a cost of over $1bn. Yesterday they delivered their verdict: There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq Full article The article also contains links to the primary dossiers and reports on the situation in Iraq, it makes an interesting read.
creator: Phoenix - Aeon
date: 2004-10-07T15:22:35-00:00

The WMD and terrorist ties that didn't exist...or did they?
type: item
description: Like searching a place the size of California, if they didn't want you to find it, would turn up anything They had plenty of time to hide the WMD or move them out, most likely to Syria
creator: Blazer
date: 2004-10-07T17:34:10-00:00

The WMD and terrorist ties that didn't exist...or did they?
type: item
description: SETI will never lose hope either. It is impossible to convince people concretely either way on the issue of WMDs. Either they exist and you can't find them and will keep looking until something comes up, or they don't and you can't prove it.
creator: Javaxcx
date: 2004-10-07T19:34:11-00:00

The WMD and terrorist ties that didn't exist...or did they?
type: item
description: Blazer Like searching a place the size of California, if they didn't want you to find it, would turn up anything They had plenty of time to hide the WMD or move them out, most likely to Syria 2 years and a billion dollars can find almost anything. And just because CNS says they won't release any more of the documents in no way means that they have them. If they don't post the documents, it means nothing. EDIT: Instead of that, how about reading a real report, like the Dolfer report, for instance? It clearly shows that the most relation Saddam had with WMDs were daydreams.
creator: SuperFlyingEngi
date: 2004-10-07T20:22:58-00:00

The WMD and terrorist ties that didn't exist...or did they?
type: item
description: SuperFlyingEngi Blazer Like searching a place the size of California, if they didn't want you to find it, would turn up anything They had plenty of time to hide the WMD or move them out, most likely to Syria 2 years and a billion dollars can find almost anything. And just because CNS says they won't release any more of the documents in no way means that they have them. If they don't post the documents, it means nothing. EDIT: Instead of that, how about reading a real report, like the Dolfer report, for instance? It clearly shows that the most relation Saddam had with WMDs were daydreams. It said he planned on getting them, and it also Said France, China, and Russia had illegal dealings with Iraq.
creator: Nodbugger
date: 2004-10-07T21:41:20-00:00

The WMD and terrorist ties that didn't exist...or did they?
type: item
description: Planned on, but had no capacity to, get WMDs. Especially with the whole world looking over his shoulder Especially with the UN sanctions Saddam didn't have WMDs and wasn't about to have them any time soon. If he started to get WMDs, the world would know. The WMD case for war is now completely unjustified.
creator: SuperFlyingEngi
date: 2004-10-07T22:14:04-00:00

The WMD and terrorist ties that didn't exist...or did they?
type: item
description: WMDs: -Nuclear (EX: duh!) -Chemical (EX: Anthrax) -Biological (considered the worst kind. EX: smallpox) those are all categories of WMDs
creator: Jecht
date: 2004-10-08T01:10:17-00:00

The WMD and terrorist ties that didn't exist...or did they?
type: item
description: SuperFlyingEngi Planned on, but had no capacity to, get WMDs. Especially with the whole world looking over his shoulder Especially with the UN sanctions Saddam didn't have WMDs and wasn't about to have them any time soon. If he started to get WMDs, the world would know. The WMD case for war is now completely unjustified. Well no. No one was looking over his shoulder. The UN sanctions were set to run out. He wanted them ASAP and could have had them in a matter of months. They had the plans for Nuclear weapons. they could easily get the parts. Did that article I post mean nothing to you?
creator: Nodbugger
date: 2004-10-08T02:11:21-00:00

The WMD and terrorist ties that didn't exist...or did they?
type: item
description: Did the one I posted mean nothing to you? Or how about the reports from official sources, face it Nodbugger, even the CIA has said there were no WMDs in Iraq.
creator: Phoenix - Aeon
date: 2004-10-08T12:59:50-00:00

The WMD and terrorist ties that didn't exist...or did they?
type: item
description: Phoenix - Aeon Did the one I posted mean nothing to you? Or how about the reports from official sources, face it Nodbugger, even the CIA has said there were no WMDs in Iraq. I don't care that there weren't. We accomplished our goal. Iraq does not have wmd, and they never will.
creator: Nodbugger
date: 2004-10-08T20:34:10-00:00

The WMD and terrorist ties that didn't exist...or did they?
type: item
description: So you don't care that George Bush himself lied to you over and over? Even if we took a country that really was no threat to anyone, and made it a festering pool of everything bad?
creator: SuperFlyingEngi
date: 2004-10-08T22:01:42-00:00

The WMD and terrorist ties that didn't exist...or did they?
type: item
description: SuperFlyingEngi So you don't care that George Bush himself lied to you over and over? Even if we took a country that really was no threat to anyone, and made it a festering pool of everything bad? no one lied. Iraq was a threat, and it is not a festering pool of everything bad. Quit lying to yourself. For every 1 soldier that supports Kerry there are 4 that support Bush. For every bad thing that happens in Iraq there are 1 million good things. The media refuses to report on it and they tricked you and you are stupid enough to believe them.
creator: Nodbugger
date: 2004-10-08T22:10:54-00:00

The WMD and terrorist ties that didn't exist...or did they?
type: item
description: Dear Lord, Thank you that Nodbugger is not old enough to vote. Please strike him dead with lightning when he turns 18. Amen.
creator: Fabian
date: 2004-10-08T22:38:54-00:00

The WMD and terrorist ties that didn't exist...or did they?
type: item
description: ACTUALLY, the only people who 'lied' (and even that is loosely based) is the CIA on the initial information. The president acting on that misinformation (unless he actually KNEW about it, something that can never be proven) is not technically his fault. HOWEVER: It IS his responsibility to deal with, and suffer the consequences of acting on misinformation. It's not very fair, but isn't that kind of axiom part of the conservative mandate anyway? As for Iraq being a threat: lol, yeah. If Iraq was a threat to America, then America is a threat to Iran and North Korea, and therefore, it would (at least according to the recurring pro-war logic that you people tend to spew out) legally justify them launching a pre-emptive attack on America. They'd fail, obviously, but it couldn't be called terrorism if what America did to Iraq's sovereignty isn't. Thing is, Nodbugger, Iraq was not, and never was even considered an imminant threat. There was absolutely NO evidence saying that Iraq would attack America March 20th, 2003, or frankly, any time in the foreseeable future. And now you're in a mess that America can't get out of any time soon. Sure, there are some pretty good things, IMO, that have happened in Iraq. There are also a great deal of pretty bad things too. The problem with you is, you're living in a happy little bubble where you can brush the bad and hypocritical aside while focusing on the happy and glamourous. I'm sure glad that the soldiers on the floor don't have YOU watching their backs.
creator: Javaxcx
date: 2004-10-08T22:54:42-00:00

The WMD and terrorist ties that didn't exist...or did they?
type: item
description: You tend to forget my dad was there and hundreds of soldiers that I have met have been there/are there/ are going there. http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-10-03-bush-troops_x.htm American Soldiers back Bush over Kerry 4-1. Are they lying too? You know those people fighting and dieing for the mission. When 80% of them support the person that put them there, those are not opinions you can refute...ever.
creator: Nodbugger
date: 2004-10-09T00:36:04-00:00

The WMD and terrorist ties that didn't exist...or did they?
type: item
description: So? Someone's opinion means absolutely nothing when it comes to the truth. The truth is: Iraq was currently not a threat. Iraq MAY have become a threat sometime in the future, but that does not mean someone could act on that assumption prior to the fact.
creator: warranto
date: 2004-10-09T02:41:58-00:00

The WMD and terrorist ties that didn't exist...or did they?
type: item
description: warranto So? Someone's opinion means absolutely nothing when it comes to the truth. The truth is: Iraq was currently not a threat. Iraq MAY have become a threat sometime in the future, but that does not mean someone could act on that assumption prior to the fact. Better safe than sorry. You simply cannot discredit the soldiers opinions. you are an idiot for doing so.
creator: Nodbugger
date: 2004-10-09T03:09:23-00:00

The WMD and terrorist ties that didn't exist...or did they?
type: item
description: The truth is that Iraq was a threat and could have become an even greater threat had he been left alone for an even longer period of time. Nodbugger is absolutely right in this regard. Saddam has assissted terrorist organizations in the past. Terrorist organizations are the threat. He was aiding the threat. Therefore, he was a threat. He had the resources, connections and the desire to hurt America. Diplomacy had failed with him for twelve years. SADDAM HUSSEIN WAS A THREAT. The world is safer now that he is out of power. I don't know why you people would have been happier to see him stay in power instead of seeing him removed. Why do you all continue to defend this brutal dictator?!?
creator: Hydra
date: 2004-10-09T03:10:30-00:00

The WMD and terrorist ties that didn't exist...or did they?
type: item
description: Nodbugger warranto So? Someone's opinion means absolutely nothing when it comes to the truth. The truth is: Iraq was currently not a threat. Iraq MAY have become a threat sometime in the future, but that does not mean someone could act on that assumption prior to the fact. Better safe than sorry. You simply cannot discredit the soldiers opinions. you are an idiot for doing so. Wow... how, unpatriotic of you. You're actually sanctioning other countries to attack America simply because someone "may" come into power that would use all those nukes you own? After all, better safe than sorry, right? Quote: I don't know why you people would have been happier to see him stay in power instead of seeing him removed. Why do you all continue to defend this brutal dictator?!? Who here is defending Saddam? I'm not, I don't think Javaxcx is. Infact, I don't think anyone wanted him to ramain in power. It still doesn't make it right to do so through illegal means. Quote: SADDAM HUSSEIN WAS A THREAT. America is a threat to people right now. You and Nodbugger are amazing. I mean, all this talk about sanctioning an attack against America is not going to go over well you know.
creator: warranto
date: 2004-10-09T03:39:51-00:00

The WMD and terrorist ties that didn't exist...or did they?
type: item
description: You are an idiot, it is that simple.
creator: Nodbugger
date: 2004-10-09T04:16:52-00:00

The WMD and terrorist ties that didn't exist...or did they?
type: item
description: hydurr34827349034 SADDAM HUSSEIN WAS A THREAT TO MY MOTHER. The neighborhood is safer now that he is out of power.
creator: Vitaminous
date: 2004-10-09T04:30:34-00:00

The WMD and terrorist ties that didn't exist...or did they?
type: item
description: Nodbugger You are an idiot, it is that simple. If he's an idiot, then you are nothing but a mindless pawn.
creator: Javaxcx
date: 2004-10-09T05:17:10-00:00

The WMD and terrorist ties that didn't exist...or did they?
type: item
description: warranto Who here is defending Saddam? I'm not, I don't think Javaxcx is. Infact, I don't think anyone wanted him to ramain in power. It still doesn't make it right to do so through illegal means. If you're so worried about "international law," why aren't you as angry at Iraq for disobeying numerous U.N. resolutions and playing footsie with weapons inspectors for 12 years? You're willing to forget all the bad and illegal things Saddam's regime committed in an attempt to weaken the legitimacy of the Iraq war. You're attempting to weaken the force that is trying to remove Saddam. Therefore, you're defending him. Something else to think about: If Saddam's removal was "illegal," then the U.N. has an obligation to place him back in power. Do you really want that? Quote: America is a threat to people right now. If you mean terrorists when you say people, you're right. Quote: You and Nodbugger are amazing. I'll take that as a compliment.
creator: Hydra
date: 2004-10-09T06:57:34-00:00

The WMD and terrorist ties that didn't exist...or did they?
type: item
description: hydra1945 If you're so worried about "international law," why aren't you as angry at Iraq for disobeying numerous U.N. resolutions and playing footsie with weapons inspectors for 12 years? Playing "footsie" as in letting them go wherever they wanted, and making the offer to the UN of doubling the number of weapons inspectors? Besides, how "footsie" could he be playing if there was nothing there, since 1992 or so?
creator: SuperFlyingEngi
date: 2004-10-09T14:46:19-00:00

The WMD and terrorist ties that didn't exist...or did they?
type: item
description: SuperFlyingEngi Playing "footsie" as in letting them go wherever they wanted, and making the offer to the UN of doubling the number of weapons inspectors? Besides, how "footsie" could he be playing if there was nothing there, since 1992 or so? I thought you were smarter than this, SuperFlyingCommunist. When did the Duelfer report come out, SuperFlyingEngi? Two fucking days ago!!! When did Saddam let the inspectors back in? A few days before the invasion!!! He kept inspectors out for FIVE YEARS before then!!!! Jesus, I have never met someone as dense as you.
creator: Hydra
date: 2004-10-09T18:09:44-00:00

The WMD and terrorist ties that didn't exist...or did they?
type: item
description: hydra1945 warranto Who here is defending Saddam? I'm not, I don't think Javaxcx is. Infact, I don't think anyone wanted him to ramain in power. It still doesn't make it right to do so through illegal means. If you're so worried about "international law," why aren't you as angry at Iraq for disobeying numerous U.N. resolutions and playing footsie with weapons inspectors for 12 years? You're willing to forget all the bad and illegal things Saddam's regime committed in an attempt to weaken the legitimacy of the Iraq war. You're attempting to weaken the force that is trying to remove Saddam. Therefore, you're defending him. Something else to think about: If Saddam's removal was "illegal," then the U.N. has an obligation to place him back in power. Do you really want that? Quote: America is a threat to people right now. If you mean terrorists when you say people, you're right. Quote: You and Nodbugger are amazing. I'll take that as a compliment. I never ONCE stated that I wasn't "angry" at Iraq for breaking the law themselves. However, that is a moot point, and only shows a desperate attempt by you to avoid the topic at hand. It was NOT America's responsibility to police the world, regardless of the UNs ineptness to do its job. Iraq broke the law as well, yes. I never once stated otherwise. However, America broke the law as well, and no amount of "Look, he did it too!" is going to change that. I am NOT trying to "weaken the force that removed him", however as I continuously state, that DOES NOT mean America didn't break any laws as well. No the UN does not have an obligation to put Saddam back into power. What they would have an obligation, if any, to do would to discipline America for its actions; but you know as wel as I do that the UN won't do anything. ...wow. I can't believe you think everyone that is not an American is a terrorist. You did say that after all... Quote: Quote: America is a threat to people right now. If you mean terrorists when you say people, you're…
creator: warranto
date: 2004-10-09T19:29:57-00:00

The WMD and terrorist ties that didn't exist...or did they?
type: item
description: You are fucking retarded. America is only a threat to those who hate the US. We will never attack a friendly nation. We will never use these weapons unless they are used against us. Is it that hard to understand? Saddam was a threat to the world. And we took him out because no one else would. Now stop bitching about it and help the situation.
creator: Nodbugger
date: 2004-10-09T19:52:09-00:00

The WMD and terrorist ties that didn't exist...or did they?
type: item
description: Where is your proof that sometime in the future, there will never be someone in power who has the desire to use those weapons? If you can provide that, then I will retract that point.
creator: warranto
date: 2004-10-09T20:14:28-00:00

The WMD and terrorist ties that didn't exist...or did they?
type: item
description: warranto I never ONCE stated that I wasn't "angry" at Iraq for breaking the law themselves. However, that is a moot point, and only shows a desperate attempt by you to avoid the topic at hand. It was NOT America's responsibility to police the world, regardless of the UNs ineptness to do its job. Iraq broke the law as well, yes. I never once stated otherwise. However, America broke the law as well, and no amount of "Look, he did it too!" is going to change that. America broke no law when it invaded Iraq as a protection of its own national security. Terrorism is a very real threat. Iraq has had a history of aiding terrorists. If anything, America was enforcing the law Saddam broke. Quote: I am NOT trying to "weaken the force that removed him", however as I continuously state, that DOES NOT mean America didn't break any laws as well. You're attacking the reasons for invading Iraq and removing Saddam. You are trying to remove the force that is finally getting rid of that brutal dictator. Again, I state, America broke no international law. Quote: No the UN does not have an obligation to put Saddam back into power. What they would have an obligation, if any, to do would to discipline America for its actions If it was indeed found to be unlawful for America to invade Iraq for the reasons it did, then the U.N. would have not only an obligation to discipline America for its wrongdoings but to rectify the damage done to Iraq. What was the "damage" done? The removal of Saddam's regime. Quote: but you know as wel as I do that the UN won't do anything. Right, because the U.N. would most likely lose the 85% of funds America provides for its operation. Quote: ...wow. I can't believe you think everyone that is not an American is a terrorist. Quote: You did say that after all... Quote: Quote: America is a threat to people right now. If you mean terrorists when you say people, you're right. ...Wow, I can't believe you got THAT out of what I said. You're smart enough to know I did not…
creator: Hydra
date: 2004-10-09T21:14:59-00:00

The WMD and terrorist ties that didn't exist...or did they?
type: item
description: hydra1945 SuperFlyingEngi Playing "footsie" as in letting them go wherever they wanted, and making the offer to the UN of doubling the number of weapons inspectors? Besides, how "footsie" could he be playing if there was nothing there, since 1992 or so? I thought you were smarter than this, SuperFlyingCommunist. When did the Duelfer report come out, SuperFlyingEngi? Two fucking days ago!!! When did Saddam let the inspectors back in? A few days before the invasion!!! He kept inspectors out for FIVE YEARS before then!!!! Jesus, I have never met someone as dense as you. No, no, the U.S. sent the inspectors a notice to get out a few days before the invasion.
creator: SuperFlyingEngi
date: 2004-10-09T21:56:02-00:00

The WMD and terrorist ties that didn't exist...or did they?
type: item
description: hydra1945 Everything in your last post; just to save space Only one thing wrong with the first part. International Law was broken. If you search, you can find mulitple threads where this was proven. In the event that the reason of America enforing the law, that as well is just as bad. Regardless of the UNs inaction, it is not up to America to produce the world. As for the stuff thats "not like me", I'm well aware of that, but I was trying to prove a point, and through those other threads that I mentioned above, this type of posting was a last resort in explaining it. The point I was tring to make is that future action, because they are not known, can not be used to explain the actions of someone. The ONLY way that something can be acted on before the act occurs is if actions are taken by the suspected to ensure the act is completed. According to the UN, Iraq was, albeit slowely, getting rid of the weapons it was told to get rid of. In the event that what Blazer posted was true, until they actually made attempts to follow through with those acts, (ex. Building up its weapons again) nothing could 'legally' be done. Anything prior to that is conspiracy, and is a lesser charge. In keeping with this out-of-character point, that definition of a threat, and it involving China, Israel, Canada, in fact every nation in the world could be a potential threat. This is exactly the point I was trying to make about future actions not being able to be considered. It turns into ludicrous reasoning such as this. Anf that "You being in charge comment" was a bit out of line, but I was getting frusterated in trying to get my point across. I appologise.
creator: warranto
date: 2004-10-10T01:26:14-00:00

The WMD and terrorist ties that didn't exist...or did they?
type: item
description: hydra1945 If you're so worried about "international law," why aren't you as angry at Iraq for disobeying numerous U.N. resolutions and playing footsie with weapons inspectors for 12 years? You're willing to forget all the bad and illegal things Saddam's regime committed in an attempt to weaken the legitimacy of the Iraq war. See, this is a neglectful problem on your part, and many pro-war types; especially on these forums. Warranto, AND myself have already stated that Iraq is in violation of international law. We have already conceded to the fact many times over many threads that Iraq is guilty of many charges. Since the majority of us here and around the world are probably in agreement on that issue as well, it really doesn't need to be brought up time and time again. When people such as yourself turn the focus of an argument off the people in question (in this case, the coalition), and back onto Iraq with the "Well he started it!" theorm, it does nothing but weaken your stance because, well, it simply means you can't defend yourself with anything else. I'd expect Nodbugger and his ilk to do something like that, but not you. Quote: You're attempting to weaken the force that is trying to remove Saddam. Therefore, you're defending him. Now here is another problem. It is not defending Saddam to say "You got him, good. You did it the wrong way, though." Remember chief, you can do the right thing the wrong way. Quote: Something else to think about: If Saddam's removal was "illegal," then the U.N. has an obligation to place him back in power. That is a very good point. Although, it does not deem the act legal. Especially when you have major figureheads of the U.N. (Like Kofi Annan) calling the war illegal. Let me be perfectly blunt: the U.N. is a farce. I can only suggest the coalition hasn't been repremended because it suits the U.N. to be on good terms with America and the United Kingdom. Again, and make sure you understand this: This does NOT deem the act legal. Quote…
creator: Javaxcx
date: 2004-10-10T04:00:07-00:00

The WMD and terrorist ties that didn't exist...or did they?
type: item
description: Who the fuck cares. The UN sucks so we told them to go fuck themselves for the time being. The UN will go nowhere as long as Kofi is around.
creator: Nodbugger
date: 2004-10-10T05:10:39-00:00

The WMD and terrorist ties that didn't exist...or did they?
type: item
description: You're a goof.
creator: Javaxcx
date: 2004-10-10T05:26:12-00:00

The WMD and terrorist ties that didn't exist...or did they?
type: item
description: Nah, both are.
creator: Vitaminous
date: 2004-10-10T06:36:29-00:00

The WMD and terrorist ties that didn't exist...or did they?
type: item
description: Nodbugger You are fucking retarded. /me sounds irony alarm.
creator: xptek
date: 2004-10-10T23:44:10-00:00

The WMD and terrorist ties that didn't exist...or did they?
type: item
description: Scamp Nodbugger You are fucking retarded. /me sounds irony alarm.
creator: Panther
date: 2004-10-11T00:00:27-00:00

The WMD and terrorist ties that didn't exist...or did they?
type: item
description: SuperFlyingEngi No, no, the U.S. sent the inspectors a notice to get out a few days before the invasion. You're taking information we learned three days ago and applying it to a situation two years ago. We didn't know Saddam didn't have any weapons of mass destruction because he still wasn't letting weapons inspectors into his country. Bush didn't lie since he didn't know the information we had learned three days ago (keyword: days) a year and a half ago (keyword: year). warranto Only one thing wrong with the first part. International Law was broken. If you search, you can find mulitple threads where this was proven. Nope, still no law broken. Article 51 of the outdated UN Charter: "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations" Members of a terrorist organization attacked the United States on September 11, 2001. That organization has been aided by Iraq in the past. Though it was not a direct attack, Iraq has still harbored and provided aid for known terrorists and terrorist organizations. The world has changed since 1945 when the UN Charter was signed, and I have yet to see any amendments made to update it to the twenty-first century. The appeasement tactics of old do not work anymore (I don't they have ever worked, come to think of it). Islamic terrorism is the threat, here, and there is no section in the UN charter to my knowledge that refers to an international threat such as this. Any nation that contributes to that threat is a threat as well and must be dealt with harshly, something the UN isn't prepared to do. Quote: Regardless of the UNs inaction, it is not up to America to police (I took the liberty of correcting that for you) the world. It is, however, up to the United States to protect itself from outside threats of which Iraq was apart. Quote: The point I was tring to make is that future action, because they are not known, can not be…
creator: Hydra
date: 2004-10-11T01:22:35-00:00

The WMD and terrorist ties that didn't exist...or did they?
type: item
description: I'll let Warranto respond to the parts addressed to him. Quote: Why, then, doesn't the world stand firmly when dealing with countries like Iraq who, as you say, is "guilty of many charges" and a threat to the world peace? The UN has allowed the situation in Iraq to escalate and worsen for twelve years by using simple appeasement tactics, and 9/11 should have been a wake-up call to the world that says even the most powerful nation in the world can fall victim to a horrendous terrorist attack. The tactics of appeasement are outdated in a post-9/11 world, and given the UN's inability to deal with Saddam firmly as it should have, it leads me to believe that the UN is outdated as well. You're right, they are outdated tactics. They SHOULD be changed. But that doesn't mean that you can go around playing vigilante cop until that happens and call it "legal". Iraq should be punished for its violations of those UN resolutions, and believe me, I don't want to see Saddam back in power, but you have to understand that two wrongs do not make a right in any circumstance. Quote: So, the war was illegal, then. Do you want Saddam back in power? Of course not. I "want" all those in violation of the law to be punished. If Saddam is also in violation of that law, and if deemed necessary by the Security Council, he wouldn't be reinstated as president of Iraq and would be tried appropriately. But that doesn't mean that the agressors are free of blame. Not by a long shot. Look, you have to look at these legal situations as objectively as possible. You might not like the idea of that, but that is simply how the law works. Quote: Wouldn't it be sort of a contradiction on your part to say you don't want Saddam put back into power even though he was removed as a result of an illegal war? Not if Saddam is also guilty of violation of the law. Quote: That clause is a perfect example of how outdated the UN is. It basically says a country has to wait to be attacked before it can take the necessary a…
creator: Javaxcx
date: 2004-10-11T01:37:29-00:00

The WMD and terrorist ties that didn't exist...or did they?
type: item
description: Quote: Nope, still no law broken. Article 51 of the outdated UN Charter: "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations" Members of a terrorist organization attacked the United States on September 11, 2001. That organization has been aided by Iraq in the past. Though it was not a direct attack, Iraq has still harbored and provided aid for known terrorists and terrorist organizations. Nope, sorry. Iraq is not Al-Queda. Regardless of "past association", the only way this link could affect the legality of the war is if Saddam hired Al-Queda for that attack. Otherwise, that comment holds no strength whatsoever. Oh, and as an extra, to my knowledge that link wasn't announced as a reason for going to war, so it doesn't make a viable defence anyways. Quote: It is, however, up to the United States to protect itself from outside threats of which Iraq was apart. And we come full circle. Prove to me that Iraq was a real an imminant threat. Quote: The UN quite frankly had no idea what Iraq was doing with its weapons of mass destruction. Saddam was and always has been playing cat-and-mouse games with the inspectors since before he kicked them out in 1998, and during the five years weapons inspectors were not present, no one had any idea what he was doing with them. He may have been dismantling them, but if he was, why wouldn't he have let anyone know about it? Why kick the inspectors out if you're doing what you're being told to do? As you know, weapons inspectors must be present at any dismantling of any weapons of mass destruction in any country in the world. If the United States decides to dismantle a nuclear warhead, UN inspectors must be present to ensure that the weapon is dismantled properly and disposed of correctly. Now, I ask you, if Saddam was indeed complying with the orders to dismantle his weapons of mass destruction after weapons inspectors we…
creator: warranto
date: 2004-10-11T01:44:41-00:00

The WMD and terrorist ties that didn't exist...or did they?
type: item
description: Quote: You're right, they are outdated tactics. They SHOULD be changed. But that doesn't mean that you can go around playing vigilante cop until that happens and call it "legal". Iraq should be punished for its violations of those UN resolutions, and believe me, I don't want to see Saddam back in power, but you have to understand that two wrongs do not make a right in any circumstance. It's becoming irrelevant as to whether or not it was vigilante justice. The fact remains that no one was going to do anything about it except for the United States. Russia, France, and Germany all had some nice deals going with Hussien. Removing him would have voided them. That is the only reason they opposed removing him from power by invading Iraq and finishing what he started in 1991. This reminds me of those "realism superhero" comics. A mega villian attacks, destroys a lot of people and property, and someone like Superman comes along and stops them. After the fight is through, someone calls them a vigilante, and they get hunted down. Nevermind the fact that they saved the populace from further destruction, or the fact that they were the only ones willing or able to do anything about it. I'll concede that what we did was "wrong" by "international law," but then again allowing Hussien to mutilate the Oil for Food program and bribe our allies into helping him does not really help your case either. I personally view this as the real world equivilant of Star Trek's Kobiashi Maru simulation program - a no win situation. Arguing over it is futile - it won't change anything at all. Quote: And we come full circle. Prove to me that Iraq was a real an imminant threat. The problem with your type of thought is that you probably won't acknowledge a threat until it makes itself known in a belligerent fashion. Quote: That's right. They were attacked by Al Qaeda, not Iraq. Therefore, under the very Charter of the U.N. (however outdated that we can agree it is), you cannot do what you did legally …
creator: Aircraftkiller
date: 2004-10-11T01:54:12-00:00

The WMD and terrorist ties that didn't exist...or did they?
type: item
description: Quote: It's becoming irrelevant as to whether or not it was vigilante justice. Quote: I'll concede that what we did was "wrong" by "international law," Whether or not it is relevant isn't the point. It either was vigilante justice, or it wasn't. And if you conceded to the aforementioned, then you must agree that it was vigilante justice. And you're right, it does tie into that idea of "realism superheros", but it still doesn't change the fact that the law was broken to meet your agenda, no matter WHAT it was. But the difference here is that Superman never goes running around like a Nodbuggered moron screaming "IT WAS LEGAL FUK U ANTIWAR BIZTSCHX". We've already agreed that it was the right thing to do, but we're firm in the fact that it was done the wrong way. It can be proven any number of ways, many of which have already been stated and restated in these, and on the Pitts. Quote: The fact remains that no one was going to do anything about it except for the United States. Russia, France, and Germany all had some nice deals going with Hussien. Removing him would have voided them. That is the only reason they opposed removing him from power by invading Iraq and finishing what he started in 1991. You have to be careful with this argument because it can come back and bite Bush, Cheney, or any other places that are making a sweet buck off this war. I probably don't need to explain it to you, so I won't bother unless you want me too. Quote: but then again allowing Hussien to mutilate the Oil for Food program and bribe our allies into helping him does not really help your case either. No one said anything about the allies being in the right either. If they are guilty of accepting bribes, then they too are in the wrong and should be punished. Quote: I personally view this as the real world equivilant of Star Trek's Kobiashi Maru simulation program - a no win situation. Arguing over it is futile - it won't change anything at all. I suppose it doesn't change anything of majo…
creator: Javaxcx
date: 2004-10-11T02:26:53-00:00

The WMD and terrorist ties that didn't exist...or did they?
type: item
description: As the victors it's our right to make money off the war. I personally think we should take their oil and annex the sections of Iraq with it for all the trouble that nation has caused us. The difference with the bribery is that I only see you focus on the US, and how you can incriminate us. How about playing fair and focusing equally on the others responsible for this mess? I don't care if it was the law or not. The problem with the "law" was that it was flawed. Generally, when laws are antiquated or not good, you'll try to get them changed. We did, if I remember correctly. It's hard to change the laws when the people who don't want it changed are the ones being bribed. At that point it doesn't become law, it becomes a chokehold on doing what it is that you need to do in order to protect your nation. As for consequences, the only consequences we should face are ones involving us pulling out of the UN and withdrawing all funding, along with removing our soldiers from every overseas location except for war spots including Afghanistan and Iraq. Other than that, they should face the consequences for being an inept world body that only exists to serve itself, not humanity as a whole.
creator: Aircraftkiller
date: 2004-10-11T03:13:02-00:00

The WMD and terrorist ties that didn't exist...or did they?
type: item
description: OK, so let me get this straight... we should let Saddam go, punish Russia, France, and Germany's leaders for being bribed... punish the US leaders as war criminals. Yes, I see that a much better solution. :rolleyes: And what is this crap about unpaid dues? From the best of my knowledge, the USA is the largest funder of all the UN's humanitarian projects. If we were so "in debt" to the UN then why wouldn't they take the first opportunity to bring us to "justice"... and how can they bring us to "justice" if Bush refused to make us a part of the International Criminal Court in the Hague?
creator: Crimson
date: 2004-10-11T04:10:59-00:00

The WMD and terrorist ties that didn't exist...or did they?
type: item
description: Aircraftkiller As the victors it's our right to make money off the war. I personally think we should take their oil and annex the sections of Iraq with it for all the trouble that nation has caused us. That wasn't what I was talking about. Quote: The difference with the bribery is that I only see you focus on the US, and how you can incriminate us. How about playing fair and focusing equally on the others responsible for this mess? In all "fairness": France, Germany, and Russia didn't cause the deaths of hundreds of innocent people while leaving just as many homeless. Sure, that's what comes with conventional war nowadays, but it doesn't change the fact that innocent people died under your attacks. Read my post again chief: if they're in the wrong, they need to be punished as well. Quote: I don't care if it was the law or not. The problem with the "law" was that it was flawed. Generally, when laws are antiquated or not good, you'll try to get them changed. We did, if I remember correctly. It's hard to change the laws when the people who don't want it changed are the ones being bribed. If this is what you (and possibly millions of Americans) believe, then why is it that you are still in the U.N.? Quote: OK, so let me get this straight... we should let Saddam go, punish Russia, France, and Germany's leaders for being bribed... punish the US leaders as war criminals. Yes, I see that a much better solution. Stop being so one dimensional. Now understand this, because you and many others are having a seemingly difficult time comprehending: "NO BODY IS ABOVE THE LAW". Conservative or not, you're all (supposed) to be equal when it comes to the law. If you ask Bush if you go to his final debate on Wednesday, he will tell you the same thing. If you are going to punish Saddam the way you have done so by eviscerating him from his sovereignty, and go as far as to critize the French, Germans, and Russians for their illegal deals which you suspect are the reasons they would not su…
creator: Javaxcx
date: 2004-10-11T05:16:02-00:00

The WMD and terrorist ties that didn't exist...or did they?
type: item
description: http://www.globalpolicy.org/finance/docs00/bartlett.htm I think this is a VERY persuasive argument towards the whole UN dues issue.
creator: Crimson
date: 2004-10-11T06:52:08-00:00

The WMD and terrorist ties that didn't exist...or did they?
type: item
description: The main point of that arguement seems to be that the US shouldn't have to pay because it has been paid many times over through other costs. That's nice, it doesn't matter though. Unless an agreement had been made that those costs could be paid in lieu of the dues, then yes, that speech would make a compalling arguement. However, to my knowledge, no such agreement has been made. Therefore that speech is a pointless arguement. Quote: OK, so let me get this straight... we should let Saddam go, punish Russia, France, and Germany's leaders for being bribed... punish the US leaders as war criminals. Yes, I see that a much better solution. Kind of like how the DC sniper had an indictment dismissed, simply because it did not reach the court in time? He was very much guilty, and should not have been able to get off. But the law is the law, regarless of who agrees with it or not. The Administrative law was not followed, therefore, despite the fact he was most likely guilty, the indictment was dismissed. Link The exact same thing applies here. If the law was not followed in the removal of Saddam, he could very well be let go. Of course, as I stated, if the UN so desired, he they could arrest him right away on other crimes.
creator: warranto
date: 2004-10-11T18:29:56-00:00

The WMD and terrorist ties that didn't exist...or did they?
type: item
description: Apparently you didn't read the entire speech. "They have all reached essentially the same conclusions, that we have spent about $19 billion on peacekeeping activities since 1992. Now, we have been credited with $1.8 billion of that against U.N. dues, so a precedent has already been made, that if we spend money on an authorized U.N. peacekeeping activity that those monies that we have spent there are in lieu of dues; that is, they could replace dues. They only did that, though, with $1.8 billion. There is about another $17 billion that is still out there that we have received no credit for."
creator: Crimson
date: 2004-10-11T23:56:34-00:00

The WMD and terrorist ties that didn't exist...or did they?
type: item
description: No, I read that part. Only a portion has been credited for it, not all of it. Meaning that, yes, money paid towards the UN may be accredited could be in lieu of UN dues. The only thing is, is that it does not automatically mean EVERY due has some money attributed to it. Going again, towards what I said about an agreement being made. This section of that paragraph explains it; important parts being bolded. Quote: that if we spend money on an authorized U.N. peacekeeping activity that those monies that we have spent there are in lieu of dues; that is, they could replace dues. They only did that, though, with $1.8 billion. There is about another $17 billion that is still out there that we have received no credit for." Now, yes that also implies there is $17 billion not accounted for, but as it is, only a portion has been put towards UN dues. Something like this has the ability to continue in the future (expences being put towards dues), but unless an arrangement has been made, it doesn't HAVE to (of course, this won't prevent America from rightfully assuming it will). In the case of a disagreement in that with America and the UN, there is always acourt to figure out the specifics.
creator: warranto
date: 2004-10-12T04:28:28-00:00