Iraq had no WMD, inspectors conclude - Darkforum.com - Dark Stories, Dark Art, Poetry, Photography, Debates and Discussions

Corporate Pig · **Iraq had no WMD, inspectors conclude -** 10-07-04

Okay... it's "offical" now...

The ISG has finished its investigations of Iraq, and filled its report..
There were NO WMD's in Iraq, and if anything (in referring to Nuclear) - he was "closer" to building a Nuclear bomb back in 1991, and that the nulcear program since then, had been in "steady decay".

So, aren't you so glad now, that the US taxpayer's shelled out over $1 Billion, to tell you exactly what the "left" had been screaming before the War even begun... that there were no weapons!
But instead, "society" adopts the ideological position of the right-wing, that War is needed - so you can feel "safer"... from something which dosen't even EXIST.

Quote:

Iraq had no WMD, inspectors conclude

The Guardian
Thursday October 7, 2004
ref: http://www.guardian.co.uk/internatio...321471,00.html

Saddam Hussein destroyed his last weapons of mass destruction more than a decade ago and his capacity to build new ones had been dwindling for years by the time of the Iraq invasion, according to a comprehensive US report released yesterday.

The report, the culmination of an intensive 15-month search by 1,200 inspectors from the CIA's Iraq Survey Group (ISG), concluded that Saddam had ambitions to restart at least chemical and nuclear programmes once sanctions were lifted.

However, concrete plans do not appear to have been laid down, let alone set in motion. Nor did Saddam issue direct verbal orders to develop weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The main evidence of his intentions are his own cryptic remarks, and the meaning his aides inferred from them.

The ISG conclusions, delivered to Congress yesterday, are badly timed for George Bush's re-election bid, as they starkly contradict his pre-war claims as well as statements he has made on the campaign trail.

Even in recent days the president has insisted that, although Iraq had no WMD at the time of the war, it was a "gathering threat" which had to be confronted. Instead the ISG found Saddam represented a diminishing threat.

However, Charles Duelfer, the head of the ISG and the report's chief author, said that by late 2001, when the international embargo on Iraq was tightened, it was clear sanctions would not have contained Saddam for much longer.

Mr Duelfer told a Senate committee yesterday the Saddam regime "had made progress in eroding sanctions, and had it not been for September 11, things would have taken a very different turn for the regime". He pointed out the report was comprehensive but "not final" as a team of 900 linguists were still sifting through a mountain of documents.

But Mr Duelfer, a former UN weapons inspector, added: "I still do not expect that militarily significant WMD stocks are hidden in Iraq."

Tony Blair said that the report showed Saddam was seeking to develop weapons of mass destruction and had retained key scientists to do so.

Mr Blair said in Ethiopia that the report showed that "the situation is far more complicated than many thought. Just as I have had to accept that the evidence now shows that there were not stockpiles of actual weapons ready to deploy, I hope others will have the honesty to accept that the report also shows that sanctions were not working. On the contrary Saddam was doing his best to get round those sanctions".

Iraq had pesticide plants and other chemical facilities which could have been converted to the production of chemical weapons, the ISG found, but there was no clear evidence of such plans.

Meanwhile, Saddam appears to have lost interest altogether in biological weapons. "ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW [biological warfare] programme or was conducting BW-specific work for military purposes," the report concluded, adding that "there appears to be a complete absence of discussion or even interest in BW at the presidential level".

Iraq would therefore "have faced great difficulty in re-establishing an effective BW agent production capability".

As far as making a nuclear bomb was concerned, Mr Duelfer said Saddam "was further away in 2003 than he was in 1991. So the nuclear programme was decaying steadily".

Mr Duelfer's team did find evidence that Saddam wanted to restart his weapons programmes if the United Nations embargo on his country was lifted. However, none of that evidence was on paper. The primary source was the imprisoned dictator himself.

According to Mr Duelfer, Saddam saw WMD primarily as a counterbalance to Iran's programmes. The ousted dictator reportedly told his interrogators "he would do whatever it took to offset the Iranian threat, making it clear he was referring to Iran's nuclear capability", Mr Duelfer said.

He suggested that only the ousted leader knew what his weapons plans were and that even close aides were uncertain whether Iraq had WMD or not.

The Duelfer report found that there had been no "identifiable group of WMD policy makers or planners separate from Saddam.

"Instead, his lieutenants understood WMD revival was his goal from their long association with Saddam and his infrequent but firm, verbal comments and directions to them."

In the 12 years between the first and second Gulf wars, however, an American official who helped compile the report said, it was clear that UN sanctions had been effective in persuading Saddam to disarm.

Mr Duelfer said Saddam's "prime objective was the termination of UN sanctions on Iraq. And he weighed all policy actions and steps for their impact on this overarching objective".

Saddam apparently believed WMD had stopped the US marching on Baghdad in 1991 and had prevented defeat by Iran.

A separate CIA report, leaked to the US press this week, severely weakened the Bush claim of a link between Baghdad and al-Qaida. It found no clear evidence of Iraq harbouring Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian terrorist believed to be behind many of the attacks and now holding the British hostage, Kenneth Bigley.

In all, 1,625 US and UN inspectors were working in Iraq for two years - from November 2002 to September 2004 - at a cost of over $1bn. They searched nearly 1,700 sites.

My God...
I guess that means, that Saddam was "telling the truth".

Synikul · 10-07-04

Here's another one....

Quote:

Saddam and the French Connection

FRASER NELSON, FRASER NELSON AND JAMES KIRKUP

Key points

• Saddam bribery revealed
• WMD said to have been destroyed
• Blair accepts mistake over WMD

Key quote
"Just as I have had to accept that the evidence now is that there were not stockpiles of actual weapons ready to be deployed, I hope others have the honesty to accept that the report also shows that sanctions weren’t working" - Tony Blair

SADDAM HUSSEIN believed he could avoid the Iraq war with a bribery strategy targeting Jacques Chirac, the President of France, according to devastating documents released last night.

Memos from Iraqi intelligence officials, recovered by American and British inspectors, show the dictator was told as early as May 2002 that France - having been granted oil contracts - would veto any American plans for war.

But the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), which returned its full report last night, said Saddam was telling the truth when he denied on the eve of war that he had any weapons of mass destruction (WMD). He had not built any since 1992.

The ISG, who confirmed last autumn that they had found no WMD, last night presented detailed findings from interviews with Iraqi officials and documents laying out his plans to bribe foreign businessmen and politicians.

Although they found no evidence that Saddam had made any WMD since 1992, they found documents which showed the "guiding theme" of his regime was to be able to start making them again with as short a lead time as possible."

Saddam was convinced that the UN sanctions - which stopped him acquiring weapons - were on the brink of collapse and he bankrolled several foreign activists who were campaigning for their abolition. He personally approved every one.

To keep America at bay, he focusing on Russia, France and China - three of the five UN Security Council members with the power to veto war. Politicians, journalists and diplomats were all given lavish gifts and oil-for-food vouchers.

Tariq Aziz, the former Iraqi deputy prime minister, told the ISG that the "primary motive for French co-operation" was to secure lucrative oil deals when UN sanctions were lifted. Total, the French oil giant, had been promised exploration rights.

Iraqi intelligence officials then "targeted a number of French individuals that Iraq thought had a close relationship to French President Chirac," it said, including two of his "counsellors" and spokesman for his re-election campaign.

They even assessed the chances for "supporting one of the candidates in an upcoming French presidential election." Chirac is not mentioned by name.

A memo sent to Saddam dated in May last year from his intelligence corps said they met with a "French parliamentarian" who "assured Iraq that France would use its veto in the UN Security Council against any American decision to attack Iraq."

Tony Blair, the Prime Minister, last night said again that he was wrong to suggest Saddam had WMD - but asked the British public to accept that Iraq would probably have acquired such weapons if he had not acted.

However, the ISG uncovered millions of pages of documents and, after interviewing scores of captured Iraqis - including Mr Aziz - the report lays out what it says is were plans to end the United Nations sanctions then start to acquire weapons.

Saddam, it says, even fooled his own military chiefs into believing that he had WMD. This was designed to deter uprising from rebel Iraqis, on whom he deployed mustard gas in 1988, and aggressors in the Middle East.

Speaking during his trip to Ethiopia last night, the Prime Minister referred to his speech last week where he admitted being "wrong" in the main part of his case for war but right to see a gathering threat in Iraq.

"Just as I have had to accept that the evidence now is that there were not stockpiles of actual weapons ready to be deployed, I hope others have the honesty to accept that the report also shows that sanctions weren’t working," he said.

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1167592004

So, from this, and the article you posted, we can conclude that we successfully pre-empted Saddam from developing WMDs. The timetable was the only thing in question.

And after we take care of Iran's little scheme with the nukes, we'll finish the plan. Israel might be willing to do the dirty work for us with Iran.

I love to see a plan come together like this. I'm glad it's all "official" now.

John Preston · 10-07-04

So Synikul, if a country MIGHT make a WMD we therein have the right to attack it, take out the leaders and replace it with leaders we prefer?

Synikul · 10-08-04

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Preston

So Synikul, if a country MIGHT make a WMD we therein have the right to attack it, take out the leaders and replace it with leaders we prefer?

If it's a country run by radical Islamists, hell YES!!!

For instance, if Iceland, or Brazil, decided to develope a nuclear weapon, I wouldn't care. Those are SANE nations, with SANE leaders. I wouldn't care if Turkey had nukes. The atheist military in Turkey keeps the muslims in line there.

Iraq couldn't be allowed to have nukes, nor can Iran, or Syria, or Yemen, or Libya. I could name a few more if I felt like thinking about it right now.

John Preston · 10-08-04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Synikul

If it's a country run by radical Islamists, hell YES!!!

For instance, if Iceland, or Brazil, decided to develope a nuclear weapon, I wouldn't care. Those are SANE nations, with SANE leaders. I wouldn't care if Turkey had nukes. The atheist military in Turkey keeps the muslims in line there.

Iraq couldn't be allowed to have nukes, nor can Iran, or Syria, or Yemen, or Libya. I could name a few more if I felt like thinking about it right now.

What is sanity, but that which we consider sanity?
At least one person would look at you and consider you insane.
Does that mean that you are therein insane?

No, it doesn't, but some believe it should or does, and that in turn has perpetuaded the insanity claims on certain people.

Was Saddam insane?
Perhaps, but ruthless and coldblooded was a more accurate means of describing him.

Was he a threat to America? No, and he probably wouldn't be for decades...by which time he would have perished.

Synikul · 10-09-04

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Preston

What is sanity, but that which we consider sanity?

I've said it before. Get off this mindset of objectivity and think of it as "us vs. them". You have to because that's how THEY think about it. So, yes, when WE, or I, consider it insanity, then it is.

John Preston · 10-09-04

I find it hilarious.
You believe it should be us vs them, for in your opinion that's how they view it.
But who exactly is them?
Mm?

The people that you deem them, and therein they become them, or the people who are actually them?
And what sort of problems is with this them that causes them to come after us?

At the heart of every problem is a reason, even if it is obscured or lost.

I know your opinions of most Muslims is that they should all die, Synikul, so we need not waste our time with that...but in the end your own opinions are heavily tainted due to that.

Arty · 10-11-04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Synikul

I've said it before. Get off this mindset of objectivity and think of it as "us vs. them". You have to because that's how THEY think about it.

So because 'they' are all being lame-arse wieners (or rather some of them are if we're going to be correct about it), you have to be a lame-arse wiener as well? An interesting logical sequence. I say that their 'us v them' mentality is all the more reason not to take that route. It is the Al-Qaeda trap. Nothing suits them more than the 'us v them' mentality. Nothing suits the cause of long-term peace less.

Corporate Pig · 10-11-04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arty

Nothing suits them more than the 'us v them' mentality. Nothing suits the cause of long-term peace less.

I agree with you Arty,..
but unfortunately people like Synikul, see everything as 'reverse' ~ or more in the 1984 'ideology' or way of thinking...

"War is Peace"
"Freedom is Slavery"

Synikul · 10-12-04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arty

So because 'they' are all being lame-arse wieners (or rather some of them are if we're going to be correct about it), you have to be a lame-arse wiener as well? An interesting logical sequence. I say that their 'us v them' mentality is all the more reason not to take that route. It is the Al-Qaeda trap. Nothing suits them more than the 'us v them' mentality. Nothing suits the cause of long-term peace less.

When has there ever been long term peace?

There never has been and there never will be. It's in human nature to fight each other.

It's like the silly Christian prophecy, where one of the signs of the end times is that there will be "wars and rumors of wars". When hasn't there been?

You might want to think about how you define peace. Is peace simply the lack of fighting?

SourMilkSea · 10-12-04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Synikul

When has there ever been long term peace?

There never has been and there never will be. It's in human nature to fight each other.

It's like the silly Christian prophecy, where one of the signs of the end times is that there will be "wars and rumors of wars". When hasn't there been?

You might want to think about how you define peace. Is peace simply the lack of fighting?

Synikul, we fear what we do not know. That is also human nature. We try to eliminate what we don't understand...Or "fight" what we don't understand. Now, if you were to actually take the time to really understand Islam or that kind of culture, you would most likely see that over all, it's a peacefull way of life. And it's people...Well, really don't deserve to all be killed off from the evil Christian extremist bastards that we would look like to them. So long as there is ignorance, there will be war.

Synikul · 10-12-04

Quote:

Originally Posted by SourMilkSea

Synikul, we fear what we do not know. That is also human nature. We try to eliminate what we don't understand...Or "fight" what we don't understand. Now, if you were to actually take the time to really understand Islam or that kind of culture, you would most likely see that over all, it's a peacefull way of life. And it's people...Well, really don't deserve to all be killed off from the evil Christian extremist bastards that we would look like to them. So long as there is ignorance, there will be war.

Islam is steadily taking over the planet. I have a 5 year old daughter. I fear that my great granddaughters will be forced by law to wear a veil.

You're new, so I'll explain it again. My opposition to Islam has very little to do with violence or terrorism. The so-called "peaceful, mainstream muslim" scares the hell out of me. That muslim will take over the west slowly, without ever firing a shot, and then freedom will be DEAD. That's why I asked Arty to define "peace". The muslims can be peaceful all they want, their culture and customs are tyrranical, and barbaric. If submitting to that lifestyle is what we have to do to get "peace", then FUCK PEACE! I'd rather leave a scorched, lifeless planet behind, than allow humanity to be poisoned by the sick, twisted cult of ignorance and death that is Islam.

Yes, this is pure, undiluted, hatred and bigotry. Ever seen it before?

John Preston · 10-12-04

Peace is not the lack of fighting, but rather the strength of will to not fight.
Many people are so barbaric and stupid that they prefer fighting over peace, since fighting is far easier to do.
Fight or flight response, basically.
"Flight" would mean you must run away, and of course evade the person. "fight" just deals with directly greeting them with a fist or two.
Which is seemingly easier to do? Fight of course.

Shadowborn · 10-12-04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Synikul

Islam is steadily taking over the planet. I have a 5 year old daughter. I fear that my great granddaughters will be forced by law to wear a veil.

You're new, so I'll explain it again. My opposition to Islam has very little to do with violence or terrorism. The so-called "peaceful, mainstream muslim" scares the hell out of me. That muslim will take over the west slowly, without ever firing a shot, and then freedom will be DEAD. That's why I asked Arty to define "peace". The muslims can be peaceful all they want, their culture and customs are tyrranical, and barbaric. If submitting to that lifestyle is what we have to do to get "peace", then FUCK PEACE! I'd rather leave a scorched, lifeless planet behind, than allow humanity to be poisoned by the sick, twisted cult of ignorance and death that is Islam.

Yes, this is pure, undiluted, hatred and bigotry. Ever seen it before?

You actually believe that Islam is that powerful? You think that it will overwhelm reason, overturn capitalism, and convert athiests? Christianity hasn't been able to overcome our Constitution's seperation of church and state, despite the best efforts of the fundamentalist right. What makes Islam so powerful that you think it can succeed?

Honestly, I don't think I've heard of such rampant paranoia since the Red Scare...I think you need to take a deep breath and calm down.

SourMilkSea · 10-12-04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Synikul

Islam is steadily taking over the planet. I have a 5 year old daughter. I fear that my great granddaughters will be forced by law to wear a veil.

You're new, so I'll explain it again. My opposition to Islam has very little to do with violence or terrorism. The so-called "peaceful, mainstream muslim" scares the hell out of me. That muslim will take over the west slowly, without ever firing a shot, and then freedom will be DEAD. That's why I asked Arty to define "peace". The muslims can be peaceful all they want, their culture and customs are tyrranical, and barbaric. If submitting to that lifestyle is what we have to do to get "peace", then FUCK PEACE! I'd rather leave a scorched, lifeless planet behind, than allow humanity to be poisoned by the sick, twisted cult of ignorance and death that is Islam.

Yes, this is pure, undiluted, hatred and bigotry. Ever seen it before?

This is how a person such as yourself probably would have sounded 60 years ago...

"Communism is steadily taking over the planet. I have a 5 year old daughter. I fear that my great granddaughters will be forced by law to use rationed toilet paper.

You're new, so I'll explain it again. My opposition to Communism has very little to do with violence or nuclear proliferation. The so-called "peaceful, mainstream Communist" scares the hell out of me. That Communism will take over the west slowly, without ever firing a shot, and then freedom will be DEAD. That's why I asked Arty to define "peace". The Communists can be peaceful all they want, their culture and customs are tyrranical, and barbaric. If submitting to that lifestyle is what we have to do to get "peace", then FUCK PEACE! I'd rather leave a scorched, lifeless planet behind, than allow humanity to be poisoned by the sick, twisted cult of ignorance and death that is Communism."

Look...There are some sick people out there who completly degrade the seemingly peacefull Islamic/Muslim religions, (Al Qaeda etc...) just like there are people who degrade seemingly peaceful Christian type religions. (The KKK etc...) For every so called peacefull culture, there will be people there to fuck it up and twist it for there stupid causes. But your average everyday Muslim neighbor isn't trying to kill you or take your grandchildren! You need to just sit back, play some Cat Stevens, and drink some Good OL American lemonade.

Synikul · 10-14-04

I searched a bit for links to the figures I've seen involving birth rates, and immigration rates, and the projections on when muslims will have enough population in Western nations to vote in Islamic law, but I couldn't find them, and I got bored. So you'll have to take my word on it that within 30 years Europe will have to make a choice.

The choice will be to continue to respect their own democratic process, or have a civil war to prevent Islamic law being imposed on EVERYONE. Canada will be next, followed by America. It will take longer in America because we have huge numbers of Catholic Mexicans coming in, which will greatly offset Muslim expansion.

Islam is different from comunism. Islam is a religion. Religions aren't defeated by cultural weapons in the media as easily as an economic theory.

Synikul · 10-14-04

Quote:

Originally Posted by SourMilkSea

[color=gray]
Look...There are some sick people out there who completly degrade the seemingly peacefull Islamic/Muslim religions, (Al Qaeda etc...) just like there are people who degrade seemingly peaceful Christian type religions. (The KKK etc...) For every so called peacefull culture, there will be people there to fuck it up and twist it for there stupid causes. But your average everyday Muslim neighbor isn't trying to kill you or take your grandchildren! You need to just sit back, play some Cat Stevens, and drink some Good OL American lemonade.

H