Army officer wouldn't ship out, faces court martial

Superfreak said:
"Exactly what they were finding in the few months that they were there: there was no evidence to support the theory that Sadam had a WMD program."

Bullshit again. That was empty rhetoric. They had no evidence that the WMDs had been destroyed. They simply went to a handful of sites and said "no weapons here". During which time Saddam was burying his jets in the desert.... but WMDs... nope... he couldn't possibly have done anything like that with them. The UN team inspected less than 5% of suspected sites (it was probably less than 1%... but my memory isn't 100% on what the actual number is).

But the important point..... IF they were able to ascertain so much in a few months.... WHY WHY WHY hadn't they done so during the TWELVE YEARS???????????
Click to expand...

They did do something, Was any neighbor Of Iraq invaded or attacked during that period ?
 
"They did do something, Was any neighbor Of Iraq invaded or attacked during that period ?"

That was due to the US and British troops enforcing the non-UN sanctioned no fly zones. That was hardly the work of the UN.

And NO, I do not think Saddam would have ever sent his military into another country with the forces that surrounded him. I do believe he would not have had any problems handing a weapon to a terrorist to be taken to
Israel or one of our embassies and setting it off. Just because his military was contained, it doesn't mean his weapons were. Again, the UN failed, but too many on the left simply won't own up to that fact. They failed for TWELVE years, but somehow an extra few months was going to solve the problem?
 
Solve what problem ? As it turns out there was no problem with WMD's. Whatcha goin on about this for ?
The only ones who thought there was a problem are those who believed Bush's lies. Did you believe his lies ?
 
Superfreak said:
"First of all, it wasn't "12 years". The inspections were from 1991-98: 7 years. "

Bullshit. It was from 1991-2003. Or did they secretly remove the sanctions from Saddam in 1998?

"Second, the inpectors DID uncover most of iraq WMD programs, and declared that 95% was accounted for and destroyed. The remaining 5% was more of an accounting matter (did they really exist? Or did iraqi technicians exaggerate their actual production, for pay bonuses and perks?). "

If this is true, I have not seen it. Please provide a link to your source material that shows they found 95%.

"Honestly, we ought to be giving the UN inspectors and the IAEA a standing ovation: compared to Bush, Blair, or Clinton, they actually did a great job on iraq. As hindsight has proven."

Did a great job with WHAT? Becoming corrupt? Taking money for oil rather than making sure the money went to the Iraqi people?

Please highlight what it is you think they did so well. I am extremely curious.
Click to expand...

If this is true, I have not seen it. Please provide a link to your source material that shows they found 95%.


-Iraq was 90 to 95 percent disarmed in 1998, (former UN inspector Mr. Ritter says
-While such leftovers are a "marginal" amount of material, says Rolf Ekeus, the Swedish former director of UNSCOM, "there is considerable risk they can produce chemical weapons.
-UNSCOM's own estimate was that 90-95% of Iraqi WMDs had been successfully destroyed before its 1998 withdrawal.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0829/p01s03-wosc.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction


Did a great job with WHAT? Becoming corrupt?

I specifically said the UNSCOM inspectors and the IAEA. There's no evidence they were corrupt. Hindsight PROVES they did a great job.

Were some bureaucrats at the UN corrupt? Yes. Americans were involved in that corruption too. Was "corruption" a reason to invade iraq? No, they didn't have WMD, they didn't have nukes, and they weren't a threat to us.
 
Superfreak said:
"They did do something, Was any neighbor Of Iraq invaded or attacked during that period ?"

That was due to the US and British troops enforcing the non-UN sanctioned no fly zones. That was hardly the work of the UN.

And NO, I do not think Saddam would have ever sent his military into another country with the forces that surrounded him. I do believe he would not have had any problems handing a weapon to a terrorist to be taken to
Israel or one of our embassies and setting it off. Just because his military was contained, it doesn't mean his weapons were. Again, the UN failed, but too many on the left simply won't own up to that fact. They failed for TWELVE years, but somehow an extra few months was going to solve the problem?
Click to expand...



The Senate bipartisan Iraq Intelligence study from September 2006, says saddam was not aiding, harboring, or helping in any way al qaeda or international jihaddists. In fact, he considered them a threat and an enemy to his socialist secular regime. Very doubtful he would ever give WMD to a group who hated saddam as much as they hated the west.

And in fact, there's no evidence he ever helped them, or even considered helping them.
 
"The Senate bipartisan Iraq Intelligence study from September 2006, says saddam was not aiding, harboring, or helping in any way al qaeda or international jihaddists. In fact, he considered them a threat and an enemy to his socialist secular regime. Very doubtful he would ever give WMD to a group who hated saddam as much as they hated the west.

And in fact, there's no evidence he ever helped them, or even considered helping them."

AND I Superfreak, said NOTHING about al Queda. Why is it people like you only hear Al Queda when someone says quite clearly TERRORISTS. I understand that Al Queda ARE terrorists, but not ALL terrorists ARE AL QUEDA. Do try to pay attention to what is written. I said quite clearly I did not think he was a threat to us HERE, but more so in abroad, especially in Israel.... where by the way HE ABSOULTELY SUPPORTED TERRORISTS.
 
Superfreak said:
"The Senate bipartisan Iraq Intelligence study from September 2006, says saddam was not aiding, harboring, or helping in any way al qaeda or international jihaddists. In fact, he considered them a threat and an enemy to his socialist secular regime. Very doubtful he would ever give WMD to a group who hated saddam as much as they hated the west.

And in fact, there's no evidence he ever helped them, or even considered helping them."

AND I Superfreak, said NOTHING about al Queda. Why is it people like you only hear Al Queda when someone says quite clearly TERRORISTS. I understand that Al Queda ARE terrorists, but not ALL terrorists ARE AL QUEDA. Do try to pay attention to what is written. I said quite clearly I did not think he was a threat to us HERE, but more so in abroad, especially in Israel.... where by the way HE ABSOULTELY SUPPORTED TERRORISTS.
Click to expand...

And that's why I specifically said Saddam didn't support international jihaddists -- those are the groups that threaten us.

Frankly, I don't give a shit if Saddam gave money to familieis of palestian bobmers, or anti-iranian kurdish rebels, like MEK.

MEK, and Hamas are nationalist terrorist groups, with limited goals directed against Israel and Iran. MEK and Hamas have never attacked the united states - their goals are an indpendent kurdistan in wester iran, or an end to israeli occupation of the west bank.

Thats' not OUR problem. That's a problem for Iran and Israel. Iran and Israel can defend themselves. I don't want to go to war to defend Iran and Israel.
 
Now lets read all of what Ritter was saying...

At the time he resigned he was saying....

"In August 1998, Ritter resigned his position as UN weapons inspector and sharply criticized the Clinton administration and the U.N. Security Council for not being vigorous enough about insisting that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction be destroyed. Ritter also accused U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan of assisting Iraqi efforts at impeding UNSCOM's work. "Iraq is not disarming," Ritter said on August 27, 1998, and in a second statement, "Iraq retains the capability to launch a chemical strike." In 1998 the UNSCOM weapons inspectors were withdrawn from Iraq. They were not expelled from the country by Iraq as has often been reported (and as George W. Bush alleged in his infamous "axis of evil" speech))[citation needed] . Rather, according to Butler himself in his book Saddam Defiant, it was U.S. Ambassador Peter Burleigh, acting on instructions from Washington, who suggested Butler pull his team from Iraq in order to protect them from the forthcoming U.S. and British airstrikes which eventually took place from from December 16-December 19, 1998."




"Between the Inspections: 1998-2002
Scott Ritter later accused some UNSCOM personnel of spying.[32] On August 31, 1998, Ritter said: "Iraq still has proscribed weapons capability. There needs to be a careful distinction here. Iraq today is challenging the special commission to come up with a weapon and say where is the weapon in Iraq, and yet part of their efforts to conceal their capabilities, I believe, have been to disassemble weapons into various components and to hide these components throughout Iraq. I think the danger right now is that without effective inspections, without effective monitoring, Iraq can in a very short period of time measure the months, reconstitute chemical biological weapons, long-range ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons, and even certain aspects of their nuclear weaponization program."[33]"


Then, after being away from the inspections for almost a year.... he started saying....

"In June, 1999, Ritter responded to an interviewer, saying: "When you ask the question, 'Does Iraq possess militarily viable biological or chemical weapons?' the answer is no! It is a resounding NO. Can Iraq produce today chemical weapons on a meaningful scale? No! Can Iraq produce biological weapons on a meaningful scale? No! Ballistic missiles? No! It is 'no' across the board. So from a qualitative standpoint, Iraq has been disarmed. Iraq today possesses no meaningful weapons of mass destruction capability."[34]"

The prior to the war, he went as far as to say your quote....

In 2002, Ritter stated that, as of 1998, 90–95% of Iraq's nuclear, biological, and chemical capabilities, and long-range ballistic missiles capable of delivering such weapons, had been verified as destroyed. Technical 100% verification was not possible, said Ritter, not because Iraq still had any hidden weapons, but because Iraq had preemptively destroyed some stockpiles and claimed they had never existed. Many people were surprised by Ritter's "bizarre turnaround" in his view of Iraq during a period when no inspections were made.[35] In 2000, Ritter produced a film that portrayed Iraq as fully disarmed. The film was funded by an Iraqi-American businessman who had received Oil-for-Food coupons from Saddam Hussein that he sold for $400,000.[36][37] During the 2002–2003 build-up to war Ritter criticized the Bush administration and maintained that it had provided no credible evidence that Iraq had reconstituted a significant WMD capability. In an interview with Time in September 2002 Ritter said there were attempts to use UNSCOM for spying on Iraq.[38]"

Now tell me... what exactly did he have access to that could have so drastically changed his mind????????
 
As for the 90-95% destroyed. That was in 1998. Intel suggested that (as Ritter originally proposed) Saddam was rebuilding weapons.... but because the UN failed to send in inspectors for FOUR years... we did not know. The UN failed completely.
 
super: why are you so emotionally-invested in defending a war -- a war in which every reasonable person admits was a mistake?
 
"And that's why I specifically said Saddam didn't support international jihaddists -- those are the groups that threaten us. "

Bullshit. What does it take for a terrorist to become international? That is the dumbest argument I have seen.

1) we have embassies and troops in the mideast. So they didn't have to be "international terrorists" (whatever the fuck that means) to hit us.

2) do the American citizens abroad not deserve to be protected (if possible) from terrorist attacks?


"Frankly, I don't give a shit if Saddam gave money to familieis of palestian bobmers, or anti-iranian kurdish rebels, like MEK. "

Of course you don't care... just let them blow up our troops on the Cole or the citizens in our embassies.... just as long as they can't hit you personally, who cares.....

"MEK, Hamas are nationalist terrorist groups, with limited goals directed against Israel and Iran. MEK and Hamas have never attacke the united states - their goals are an indpendent kurdistan in wester iran, or an end to israeli occupation of the west bank. "

Ahhh... the complete stupidity of this argument actually almost makes it funny. PRIOR to 9/11, Al Queda had not hit the US over here either. Hamas does not have the goal of removing Israel from the West bank... their goal is the complete destruction of Israel.

"Thats' not OUR problem. That's a problem for Iran and Israel. Iran and Israel can defend themselves. I don't want to go to war to defend Iran and Israel."

Fine, lets let Israel handle things in the manner that they would prefer. A few quick nuke strikes and the mid east becomes a nice big piece of glass.
 
Superfreak said:
"And that's why I specifically said Saddam didn't support international jihaddists -- those are the groups that threaten us. "

Bullshit. What does it take for a terrorist to become international? That is the dumbest argument I have seen.

1) we have embassies and troops in the mideast. So they didn't have to be "international terrorists" (whatever the fuck that means) to hit us.

2) do the American citizens abroad not deserve to be protected (if possible) from terrorist attacks?


"Frankly, I don't give a shit if Saddam gave money to familieis of palestian bobmers, or anti-iranian kurdish rebels, like MEK. "

Of course you don't care... just let them blow up our troops on the Cole or the citizens in our embassies.... just as long as they can't hit you personally, who cares.....

"MEK, Hamas are nationalist terrorist groups, with limited goals directed against Israel and Iran. MEK and Hamas have never attacke the united states - their goals are an indpendent kurdistan in wester iran, or an end to israeli occupation of the west bank. "

Ahhh... the complete stupidity of this argument actually almost makes it funny. PRIOR to 9/11, Al Queda had not hit the US over here either. Hamas does not have the goal of removing Israel from the West bank... their goal is the complete destruction of Israel.

"Thats' not OUR problem. That's a problem for Iran and Israel. Iran and Israel can defend themselves. I don't want to go to war to defend Iran and Israel."

Fine, lets let Israel handle things in the manner that they would prefer. A few quick nuke strikes and the mid east becomes a nice big piece of glass.
Click to expand...


In 30 years of the history of MEK and Hamas, they've never attacked us. They're goals are against israel and iran.

so, you're telling me that you took us to war, spent half a trillion taxpayer dollars, and killed or wounded 25,000 american soldiers on a "gut feeling" that someday MEK or Hamas might attack us someday?

;)

Ridiculous logic to launch a war of this scale.
 
"super: why are you so emotionally-invested in defending a war -- a war in which every reasonable person admits was a mistake?"

Why are YOU so mentally crippled that you cannot teach yourself to remove the selective reading glasses.

I have said time and again,

1) the war should not have happened when it did

2) that if we were going to war we needed better planning as to the execution AND to the exit strategy.

But you don't see those portions of what I post. YOU just read that your beloved UN fucked up and that sends you into a frenzy. YOU can't face the glaring fact that HAD THEY DONE THEIR JOBS to begin with, NONE of this would have happened.
 
"In 30 years of the history of MEK and Hamas, they've never attacked us. They're goals are against israel and iran. "

AND PRIOR TO 9/11... just how many times did Al Queda attack us over here?
 
"so, you're telling me that you took us to war, spent half a trillion taxpayer dollars, and killed or wounded 25,000 american soldiers on a "gut feeling" that someday MEK or Hamas might attack us someday?"

No.... our moronic politicians took us into yet another war that instead of fighting militarily, they want to fight politically.
 
Superfreak said:
"In 30 years of the history of MEK and Hamas, they've never attacked us. They're goals are against israel and iran. "

AND PRIOR TO 9/11... just how many times did Al Queda attack us over here?
Click to expand...


AND PRIOR TO 9/11... just how many times did Al Queda attack us over here?

Afrian embassies, WTC 93, USS Cole, etc.

And they annouced their intetion to attack us.


Hamas has never attacked us. And has never announced an intention for doing so. Their limited goal is to end israeli occupation of the west bank. Attacking kansas city does not advance that goal.

BTW: Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt give money to families of suicide bombers. Are you suggestiing we need to invade those three countries too?
 
Scott Ritter said before Bush invaded that there were no WMD. Whatever may have been left over from the 1980s or 1990s, would have degraded into useless goo by 2003.

Bush said Iraq had huge stockpiles of WMD.

Ritter was RIGHT. Bush was WRONG

So, we'll be believing Ritter's credibility, before Bush's from now on.
 
"Hamas has never attacked us. And has never announced an intention for doing so. Their limited goal is to end israeli occupation of the west bank. Attacking kansas city does not advance that goal. "

#1) Why the fuck ya gotta bring KC into this? Now its personal ;)

#2) Do you really believe that Hamas's goal is to remove Israel from the west bank? Or is it to simply remove Israel?

#3) AGAIN... Hamas et all see the US support of Israel as a MAJOR hinderance. Do you really believe that if they were provided the money and weaponry that they would not attack us? Is so, you are hopelessly naive.

"BTW: Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt give money to families of suicide bombers. Are you suggestiing we need to invade those three countries too?"

No.

The governments of those countries (to my knowledge) do not give money to the support of terrorist groups. (at least not as openly as Saddam)

We would also have no justification at all for going into those countries. With Saddam, we had justification.... although as I mentioned, I still think we should have waited.

It would be like bombing Boston because the Kennedy's and others supported the IRA. ;)
 
2) do the American citizens abroad not deserve to be protected (if possible) from terrorist attacks?
//
They bought their tickets and are on their own. except for the usual stuff we have always done thru the embassies and such.
I am sort of the same way on MTN climbers, they want to challenge death, why risk others lives to bail them out from their challenge ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top