Bin Laden Tape Warns Iraqis To Resist Unity

[COOL_BREEZE2]

Additionally:

An Assessment of UN Accomplishments in Iraq

Biological Weapons ​

Iraqi Claims​

• Baghdad initially stated in April 1991 that it did not have biological weapons (BW) or related items. Over the next four years, Iraq held that its germ warfare research had been for defensive purposes only, not for an offensive capability.
• On July 1, 1995, Iraq admitted for the first time that it had had an offensive biological weapons program, but it denied ever producing germ weapons.
• After the August 1995 defection of Hussein Kamel, who directed Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs, Iraq acknowledged for the first time that it had weaponized biological agents.
• Iraqi officials gave conflicting accounts on how many and what types of biological weapons the country actually produced, although they say no more than 25 Al-Hussein missile warheads and 157
  R-400 aerial bombs were filled with biological agents.

(continues........)

Chemical Weapons ​

Iraqi Claims​

• Following the Persian Gulf War, Baghdad initially declared it had 11,131 chemical weapons and warheads and 1,005 tonnes of stockpiled sarin, tabun, and mustard agents.
• Iraq initially reported that there were 553 pieces of chemical weapons production equipment located at its 15 chemical weapons facilities.
• Iraq claimed it had never successfully produced or weaponized the nerve agent VX.

(continues............)

Nuclear Weapons ​

Iraqi Claims​

• In its initial 1991 declaration, Iraq claimed that it had no nuclear weapons and no nuclear-weapon-usable material.

IAEA Accomplishments​

• Despite Iraqi concealment efforts, weapons inspectors developed what they claimed was a “technically coherent picture” of Iraq’s entire nuclear weapons program.
• By February 1994, the IAEA finished a complete accounting of and removal of all weapon-usable nuclear material from Iraq, including the nearly 50 kilograms of highly enriched uranium that the IAEA reported Iraq had imported from France and the former Soviet Union.
• The IAEA supervised or verified the destruction of all known facilities and specialized equipment used in Iraq’s nuclear weapons program.

Key Outstanding Issues​

• Iraq has failed to provide key technical documents, such as nuclear-weapon and gas-centrifuge design drawings.
• Iraq has not provided the name or location of a foreign individual who allegedly offered to assist Iraq’s nuclear weapons program.
• No evidence or documentation has been submitted by Baghdad to prove it abandoned its nuclear weapons program.

(continues..........)

Ballistic Missiles With a Range of 150 Kilometers
Or More​

Iraqi Claims​

• Iraq initially declared that it possessed only 52 ballistic missiles with a range of more than 150 kilometers remaining after the Gulf War.
• Iraq did not admit to having any forbidden indigenous missile programs.

UNSCOM Findings and Assessments​

• Baghdad initially attempted to mislead UNSCOM substantially about its ballistic missile programs. Iraq decided to keep secret two-thirds of its operational missile inventory and to conceal its capabilities to produce outlawed missiles.
• Iraq continued to work on its proscribed programs and even initiated new projects while inspectors were in the country. Most notably, Iraq attempted to import missile gyroscopes.
• Iraq did not provide any information on how many surface-to-air missiles it converted to surface-to-surface missiles, even though UNSCOM destroyed nine such missiles.
• Iraq did not turn over any records or documents on its missile warhead purchases or production and it has offered conflicting statements about its numbers of chemical and biological missile warheads.
• Despite evidence that Baghdad ordered missile factories in 1988 to plan for the production of 1,000 Al Hussein missiles, it contended that not a single missile had been produced by January 1991.
• UNSCOM asserted in its final assessment of January 1999 that it could not verify that Iraq had unilaterally destroyed all of the components and capabilities it had claimed to.

(continues............)

Hope this is sufficient. Do you see a pattern?

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

===:ninja
opcorn2:

 

[GraceAbounds]

I bet the 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians give quite a few rats..

They can have 100,000 dead due to fighting for freedom. Or they can have 100,000+ dead due to Saddam's genocidal ways.

 

[IntruderLS1]

Hope this is sufficient. Do you see a pattern?

===:ninja
opcorn2:

Uh Oooooohhhhhh...... Somebody's looking to scrap. :24::24:



Pssst.... Don't forget to mention that WMD Mustard gas rockets were actually found in Iraq last year, but they don't count because they were old.... :ninja

 

[Pudding Time]

They can have 100,000 dead due to fighting for freedom. Or they can have 100,000+ dead due to Saddam's genocidal ways.

US forces killed these 100,000 innocent people. Were they fighting the US for their freedom?

Did they even make the call to do this? No, the US made the call for them. We don't even know if they wanted this, and had they known so many innocent people would die, I'd assume they would not.

Of course they wanted Saddam ousted. But they were forced into the condition of how Saddam would be ousted when there existed multiple ways to do it without mass casualties.

 

[GraceAbounds]

We can go round and round Pudding Time over this and it is obvious we aren't going to agree on this particular issue.

Hey, we can't agree on everything. No biggie. It was good going back and forth with ya.

 

[Pudding Time]

We can go round and round Pudding Time over this and it is obvious we aren't going to agree on this particular issue.

Hey, we can't agree on everything. No biggie. It was good going back and forth with ya.

True. I was thinking the same thing when I saw you had made a new post in here.


Great minds think alike? :24::24: Oh what a knee-slapper right there!!

 

[gLing]

Whether the US should or should not have gone in is moot now since the deed is done. What should be argued now is what to do next. Drop everything and leave or stay until the mess settles?

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

Uh Oooooohhhhhh...... Somebody's looking to scrap. :24::24:


Pssst.... Don't forget to mention that WMD Mustard gas rockets were actually found in Iraq last year, but they don't count because they were old.... :ninja

LOL Intruder. I'm waiting very patiently with my popcorn. opcorn2:

I saw ole Timbo looking at the tread for a while after I posted, but no response yet. I know it's a kind of a brain teaser so it's ok. I'm curious to hear what all of those anti-action/pro-Saddam supporters have to say with regard to what is contained in the report, extracts of which I presented there, with regard to the historical facts surrounding the vast amount of time that was spent prior to affirmative action being taken following getting the run around and deceptions from Saddam and his cohorts for so long. Poor Saddam. He should have gotten more time. Perhaps another 10+ years. Yeah, that should have been just about right.

 

[Tim]

LOL Intruder. I'm waiting very patiently with my popcorn. opcorn2:

I saw ole Timbo looking at the tread for a while after I posted, but no response yet. I know it's a kind of a brain teaser so it's ok. I'm curious to hear what all of those anti-action/pro-Saddam supporters have to say with regard to what is contained in the report, extracts of which I presented there, with regard to the historical facts surrounding the vast amount of time that was spent prior to affirmative action being taken following getting the run around and deceptions from Saddam and his cohorts for so long. Poor Saddam. He should have gotten more time. Perhaps another 10+ years. Yeah, that should have been just about right.

I actually didn't get to finish reading it last night since I was holding the baby... Family always comes before the site

Now... to assume that I am anyway a Saddam supporter, is stepping WAY over the bounds. I think he was one of the most vile and reprehensible people to walk the face of the earth. He needed to go... no question about it. Iraq/the world would be a much better place with out him.

But.... I strongly feel that invading the country to do it was the wrong move... Hell, even Cheney said as much in 1992 (did you ever see that interview?)
I firmly believe that this war is nothing more than a way for Bush and his cronies to loot the US. These mega corporations are getting rich off of this war. Our country is going deep into the red as these corps are getting filthy rich. Haliburton is even moving their headquarters to Dubai so they won't have to pay US taxes... how's that for a big Fuck You?
I know the number of 100,000 innocent civilians has been floating around... well the actual number is at least 5 times that, maybe more... and for ANYONE to suggest that it was better for them to die by our hands in the name of freedom, than to die by the hands of Saddam is living in a twisted reality. Let Saddam kill more innocent people or We kill innocent people in the name of freedom? Those were the only two choices? Really?

Saddam wanted to leave his country and go into hiding, that was an option.
A precision air strike on his location, that was an option.
Actually supporting the members of his cabinet that were trying to over throw Saddam (like we said we would) was an option... but we turned our backs on them and allowed Saddam to round them up and slit their throats....

There are 101 ways we could have avoided this war, but that's not what this administration wanted. This war was going to happen no matter what.

Saddam was a nobody. He wasn't a threat to this country. He thumbed his nose at the US and his people ended up paying for it with their lives.

 

[dt3]

We don't even know if they wanted this.

The vast majority did. Remember how many of them lined up to vote? They had something like triple the voter-turnout of the US.

As I said before, I was there when Saddam was hanged. Words can't explain their emotions. The majority of them were excited/cheering for weeks. It even changed their greetings. Instead of saying good morning to us in Arabic, they would wrap their hands around their throat, make a gagging sound, say "Saddam" and give us a thumbs up. You'll never convince me they didn't want him gone.

A precision air strike on his location, that was an option.

I know you know the shell-game he played with his palaces and his exact location, etc. Not to mention the body-doubles. I don't think this was ever a realistic option. Heck, look at how long it took us to find him after we were actually there!

 

[Tim]

We could have taken him out in an air strike with patience. Plus the shell game was being played because of the invasion going on...

Time was on our side. To even suggest that he would be able to evade our military for any prolonged period of time is crazy...

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

Tim, it's easy in hindsight to say one should have not done this and not that. The fact is Saddam was giving the U.N the run around for many many years, even after he had agreeing to supervision, inspection and dismantling of his chemical, nucleur and/or other WMD program, before affirmative action was taken. What followed his agreement to the treaty in 1990/1991 was a series of interference and deception which was later revealed. True?

As far as action is concerned, well damned if you do and damned if you don't but how long must one wait before taking action to what seemed a clear disregard and series of deception. At least the US of A was brave enough to take action...eventually, while others prefer to stay on the sidelines and play it safe. Lest we not forget our old friend Hitler.

"Saddam was a nobody. He wasn't a threat to this country. He thumbed his nose at the US and his people ended up paying for it with their lives."

I guess if Hitler was in this period some may say it was better to have done nothing to prevent what did actually take place because others wanted to ignore what was happening...that he was a nobody.....and that perhaps he would never have done what he did.....because he just would not have. SMH.

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

We could have taken him out in an air strike with patience. Plus the shell game was being played because of the invasion going on...

Time was on our side. To even suggest that he would be able to evade our military for any prolonged period of time is crazy...

Call me crazy, but...Where oh where is Osama?

 

[dt3]

We could have taken him out in an air strike with patience. Plus the shell game was being played because of the invasion going on...

Time was on our side. To even suggest that he would be able to evade our military for any prolonged period of time is crazy...

The shell game was routine SOP for him from the Gulf War all the way to the new war. I doubt there was a time when we were 100% certain of his whereabouts. In fact, I hope there was never a time when we knew where he was, because at that moment we should've bombed the crap out of him. He always had the body-doubles and rarely slept in the same palace two nights in a row.

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

My humble opinion, Saddam (however it is actually spelled) was implemented by us, because of that little issue we had with Iran. He was a tyrant back then, and to my record never really changed his path.

I would be willing to bet that the majority of weapons he had were partly due to our aid. At least it wouldn't surprise me.

And lastly, Osama is still alive because we need him to justify Iraq.....Oh wait he has nothing to do with that.

See it all makes sense until you throw in the fact that we invaded a country.......To kill one guy, who was not actually the guy we were really mad at to begin with....Not until Uncle Cheney and GW told us to be mad at him.

And basically, I question our entire intelligence community right now, in fact the entire government has blodd on the hands right now, like it or not. You will never convince me that Iraq is any more diplomatic than it was, now the "insurgents" are ruling the roost with terror. And you will never run out of "insurgents" to kill, they will never go away.

 

[Tim]

Saddam and hitler are not even in the same category of evil.
Hitler had at his disposal one of the worlds greatest armies. Saddam was not even close to having the same military might after we had decimated the Republican National guard. He had no air force to speak of, he had no navy to speak of... basically he was a threat to his neighbors (if that) and nothing more.

Time was on our side and we didn't use it properly... When you talk about hindsight and doing this or that, you fail to see it from my perspective... When you are going to commit your young men and women and billions upon billions of dollars into war, you better be damn sure what you are doing and that it's the right move. There was too much intel available at the time to say we didn't know. There were people in high places that urged the president to wait.

If you boil it all down... we invaded Iraq because of their possible/probable WMD programs/cache. We had inspectors on the ground looking. We had shady intel on what they did or didn't have. We had Saddam giving us the complete run around.
So we invaded Iraq preemptively... for what? Our peace of mind? To save his people? So he couldn't attack us?
When has it become ok to invade another country because they might pose a threat to us?

 

[dt3]

When has it become ok to invade another country because they might pose a threat to us?

Here's the list off the top of my head, in rough chronological order:

The Indian Wars
Spanish-American War
Civil War
WWI
Any of the Banana Wars in the early 20th century
The European Theater of WWII
Korea
Vietnam
Gulf War


I'm not saying any one of these wars were "wrong", but none of these countries posed a direct threat to us.

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

Saddam and hitler are not even in the same category of evil.
Hitler had at his disposal one of the worlds greatest armies. Saddam was not even close to having the same military might after we had decimated the Republican National guard. He had no air force to speak of, he had no navy to speak of... basically he was a threat to his neighbors (if that) and nothing more.

Time was on our side and we didn't use it properly... When you talk about hindsight and doing this or that, you fail to see it from my perspective... When you are going to commit your young men and women and billions upon billions of dollars into war, you better be damn sure what you are doing and that it's the right move. There was too much intel available at the time to say we didn't know. There were people in high places that urged the president to wait.

If you boil it all down... we invaded Iraq because of their possible/probable WMD programs/cache. We had inspectors on the ground looking. We had shady intel on what they did or didn't have. We had Saddam giving us the complete run around.
So we invaded Iraq preemptively... for what? Our peace of mind? To save his people? So he couldn't attack us?
When has it become ok to invade another country because they might pose a threat to us?

:homo:

If WMD's is what we were originally there for, then that purpose was lost a long time ago.

I just read an article that discussed a rather popular ground troop of ours in Iraq, Alpha Team. The basic synopsis was simply this, the whole time they were in and our of country, nobody could actually give them a definitive objective, they were basically targets for insurgents, limited intel, horrible maps, limited ability to discern the enemy from ally.

WOW.....It sounds like we are talking about another little "conflict" that happened a long time ago.

I argue that what is being done to our own troops there is criminal. I cannot find one positive thing to say about how they have been treated by our own government. Let alone the folks here that somehow equate them (the troops) with any wrongdoing, for basically following orders they are handed.

I am nasueated by the whole thing.

 

[Tim]

Here's the list off the top of my head, in rough chronological order:

The Indian Wars
Spanish-American War
Civil War
WWI
Any of the Banana Wars in the early 20th century
The European Theater of WWII
Korea
Vietnam
Gulf War


I'm not saying any one of these wars were "wrong", but none of these countries posed a direct threat to us.

Not one on your list was a first strike by us. They were all conflicts or wars that we got involved with in our own best interest. As a super power we need to help keep global stability...

But I would really like to see 1 example in recent history where the US was the aggressors... you won't find one, because it is against international law. It is a crime.