Confirmed, WMDs found

[Kilmer17]

http://www.msnbc.com/news/895185.asp?vts=040420030710&cp1=1

This confirms that Iraq has WMDs that they denied having AND it confirms a link to Al Queda.

Are you listening France?

[TheKurp]

How do the Kurds escape responsibility?

[poidog22]

Trust me Kilmer, it's better that France is not supporting us, they'd only get in our way.

"France has neither winter nor summer nor morals. Apart from these drawbacks it is a fine country. France has usually been governed by prostitutes." ---Mark Twain

"I just love the French. They taste like chicken!"

---- Hannibal Lecter

While speaking to the Hoover Institution today, Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was asked this question:

"Could you tell us why to date at least the Administration doesn't favor direct talks with the North Korean government? After all, we're talking with the French."

The Secretary smiled and replied:

"I'm not going there!"

"I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me."

--- General George S. Patton

"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion."

--Norman Schwartzkopf

"We can stand here like the French, or we can do something about it."

---- Marge Simpson

"As far as I'm concerned, war always means failure"

---Jacques Chirac, President of France

"As far as France is concerned, you're right."

---Rush Limbaugh,

"The only time France wants us to go to war is when the German Army is sitting in Paris sipping coffee."

--- Regis Philbin

There was a Frenchman, an Englishman and Claudia Schiffer sitting together in a carriage in a train going through Provence. Suddenly the train went through a tunnel and as it was an old style train, there were no lights in the carriages and it went completely dark. Then there was a kissing noise and the sound of a really loud slap. When the train came out of the tunnel, Claudia Schiffer and the Englishman were sitting as if nothing had happened and the Frenchman had his hand against his face as if he had been slapped there. The Frenchman was thinking: 'The English fella must have kissed Claudia Schiffer and she missed him and slapped me instead.' Claudia Schiffer was thinking: 'The French fella must have tried to kiss me and actually kissed the Englishman and got slapped for it.' And the Englishman was thinking: 'This is great. The next time the train goes through a tunnel I'll make another kissing noise and slap that French ******* again.'

"The French are a smallish, monkey-looking bunch and not dressed any better, on average, than the citizens of Baltimore. True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whiskey I don't know."

--- P.J O'Rourke (1989)

Next time there's a war in Europe, the loser has to keep France.

An old saying:

Raise your right hand if you like the French....

Raise both hands if you are French.

"You know, the French remind me a little bit of an aging actress of the 1940s who was still trying to dine out on her looks but doesn't have the face for it."

---John McCain, U.S. Senator from Arizona

"You know why the French don't want to bomb Saddam Hussein? Because he hates America, he loves mistresses and wears a beret. He is French, people."

--Conan O'Brien

"I don't know why people are surprised that France won't help us get Saddam out of Iraq. After all, France wouldn't help us get the Germans out of France!"

---Jay Leno

"The last time the French asked for 'more proof' it came marching into Paris under a German flag."

--David Letterman

How many Frenchmen does it take to change a light bulb?

One. He holds the bulb and all of Europe revolves around him.

[Kilmer17]

Spin spin spin.

My god man.

[Riggo-toni]

Actually, this site is from a Kurdish enclave loyal to Iran that was outside of Saddam's reach. Iraq-Al Qaeda, okay; but it is NOT evidence of a Saddam/Baath-Al Qaeda link. Rather, this was a Kurdish faction opposed to the Baathist regime.

It does however point out one of the prime difficulties we will have post-war, namely trying to get all these factions to accept some kind of power-sharing democracy. Even the Kurds are not a united group. Various clans actually receive support from Saddam to fight clans like this one that get support from Iran. In addition, there is a small Turkomen minority that complains of discrimination. Since they are more closely linked ethnically to the Turks, this could provoke more tension between a paranoid Turkey and an emboldened post-war Iraq.

[TheKurp]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

Spin spin spin.

My god man.

Kilmer,

You're going to have to assemble a better response than that if you're going to garner any respectability.

There's no spin to it. It's a legitimate question. This is a mile from Iran's border in the north which places the al Qaeda camp squarely in the midst of U.N. sanctioned Kurdish territory.

[Kilmer17]

Let's make a deal. You tell me what you need to admit that Saddam and his regime have WMDs and that there is a link to AL Queda. If I agree with your idea of what is needed, I wont post another link claiming to prove it until I find EXACTLY what you require as proof.

This has been my problem with those on the left (not you or anyone inparticualr) wh continue to claim we havent proved enough yet.

1st they wanted congressional approval, then another UN resolution, then they wanted NATO support, then they wanted proof he had WMDs, and on and on. It's a sick cycle that has no ending because the left can continue to say "that's not enough" without ever saying what would be enough.

[TheKurp]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

Let's make a deal. You tell me what you need to admit that Saddam and his regime have WMDs and that there is a link to AL Queda. If I agree with your idea of what is needed, I wont post another link claiming to prove it until I find EXACTLY what you require as proof.

How convenient for you. Burden of proof now rests with the accused does it?

First off, it would do you a world of good to familiarize yourself with the definition of what constitutes a weapon of mass destruction. Here's a hint: the presence of traces of toxins doesn't qualify.

Secondly, you said there's a link between Iraq and al Qaeda. I'm not arguing that. What I want to know is how Kurds are immune from culpability for evidence of an al Qaeda camp in their territory.

Thirdly, you are misinformed if your assumption is that any evidence of terrorist activities within Iraq's borders directly points to Saddam's involvement. Perhaps you should spend a little time educating yourself on the various political, religious, and ethnic populations that comprise Iraq's populace and areas of influence.

Fourthly, you unequivocally use the word "confirmed". The link you provided does not prove with certainty that Iraq is in possession of WMDs. Only that traces of toxins that once existed in a camp in Northern Iraq were found.

This has been my problem with those on the left (not you or anyone inparticualr) wh continue to claim we havent proved enough yet.

If you're talking about WMDs and a link between al Qaeda and Saddam, then yes, there isn't enough proof, yet. The U.S. pretty much acknowledged this when they initiated the war, calling it Operation Iraqi Freedom. There's no doubt that a preponderance of evidence is mounting, but proof-positive has yet to be established, at least to my knowledge, and the link you provided in this thread certainly doesn't qualify.

1st they wanted congressional approval, then another UN resolution, then they wanted NATO support, then they wanted proof he had WMDs, and on and on. It's a sick cycle that has no ending because the left can continue to say "that's not enough" without ever saying what would be enough.

This is no doubt a lot wordier than "spin spin spin", but you continue to say very little.

There are a number of legitimate reasons to justify U.S. military action in Iraq, why don't you just stick to those for now, at least until WMDs are found and Saddam's connection to al Qaeda is firmly established.

[NavyDave]

Even if we find a bloody glove to go with the smoking gun, you will hear that M Fuhrman planted it in a palace

[Riggo-toni]

K17,

I think the find of mustard gas and cyanide in the Euphrates is pretty clear evidence of WMDs. You don't have to convince me of that (although I'm not sure you were referring to me, since I'm not of the political left). I also think there is clear evidence of Iraq supporting various terror groups like Fatah, Hamas, and of course, Abu Nidal.

While Al Qaeda is now jumping at the chance to kill Americans in Iraq, I do not believe there has been any significant past connection/support between Saddam and Binny's boys. Nor do I believe, however, that such a connection must be proven or even exist as some sort of prerequisite for taking out this SOB.

[Funkyalligator]

At least admit that Saddam indirectly supports terrorism, please note his payment of 25,000 dollars to the families of homicide bombers in Israel

[codeorama]

Kilmer, there has been no evidence found yet that would win a convicition in a US court. More over, the US Military has been saying that "to this point, no weapons of mass destruction have been found or used"... but we are supposed to believe a preliminary news article, when over the past 3 weeks the preliminary reports have changed so frequently it's absurd. When the Military holds a press conference and shows that it has found irrefutable proof, I will be a believer, until then.....

I have never said that Iraq did not have WMD, but the burden of proof is on the Bush Admin, and the world is waiting.

Almost every day there has been an "I told you so" thread started, look where those stories turned out. I will with hold judgement until the military makes an official announcement.

[TheKurp]

Originally posted by Funkyalligator

At least admit that Saddam indirectly supports terrorism, please note his payment of 25,000 dollars to the families of homicide bombers in Israel

That Funkyalligator is what is known as a legitimate reason for removing Saddam from power.

[TheKurp]

Originally posted by riggo-toni

K17,

I think the find of mustard gas and cyanide in the Euphrates is pretty clear evidence of WMDs.

Careful Riggo, the Euphrates has long been contaminated with cyanide. What we don't know yet is if the levels being reported are a significant departure from what has been found in the past.

You don't have to convince me of that (although I'm not sure you were referring to me, since I'm not of the political left). I also think there is clear evidence of Iraq supporting various terror groups like Fatah, Hamas, and of course, Abu Nidal.

Yes, and these are legitimate reasons for removing Saddam from power. However many Americans are not intimately familar with these terrorist organizations. Al Qaeda on the other hand has fast become part of the American vocabulary. A definitive link between al Qaeda and Saddam would have saved Bush much headache in dealing with the U.N.

While Al Qaeda is now jumping at the chance to kill Americans in Iraq, I do not believe there has been any significant past connection/support between Saddam and Binny's boys. Nor do I believe, however, that such a connection must be proven or even exist as some sort of prerequisite for taking out this SOB.

Nor do I.

[Kilmer17]

Exactly what I thought. There will be those who could have a nuclear device go off and still claim Saddam didnt have one.

It's hard to prove something when boundries arent set. Is the mustard gas found in the river not enough? Even a TRACE amount is more than he's claimed to have had. and more than is allowable by the resolutions and cease fire agreements.

Is the fact that Zarchoui (sp?) got medical treatment in Bagdad not enough of an Al Queda link?

Im not asking to shift the burden of proof at all. That would mean i ask you to prove he doesnt have them (sound familiar? 1441 said this precisely) Instead, Im asking you to tell me what you would accept as evidence to prove my side. Completely different than shifting the burden.

[TheKurp]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

It's hard to prove something when boundries arent set. Is the mustard gas found in the river not enough? Even a TRACE amount is more than he's claimed to have had. and more than is allowable by the resolutions and cease fire agreements.

Read up on Mustard gas and then get back to me, okay Kilmer? Specifically, find out how long it stays in the environment. Read up on what happens when mustard gas is exposed to water. Then do a Google search using these words: 1988, Iraq, Kurds.

Is the fact that Zarchoui (sp?) got medical treatment in Bagdad not enough of an Al Queda link?

It's obvious law isn't your field of speciality.

Im not asking to shift the burden of proof at all. That would mean i ask you to prove he doesnt have them (sound familiar? 1441 said this precisely) Instead, Im asking you to tell me what you would accept as evidence to prove my side. Completely different than shifting the burden.

Okay. How about an actual WMD? I'll take one single document that indicates that Saddam knowingly and directly assisted al Qaeda's activities.

[codeorama]

For me, my opinion of the war hinges on one topic.. that is a link between Saddam and Al Quaeda. If there is no link, this war is a peacekeeping type of effort and I'm against that. I was against it when Clinton was in office and I will continue to be in the future.

I honesly expected that there would be a discovery of WMD before now, that there hasn't been amazes me.

Kurp... You've brought up some very interesting points that I wasn't even aware of...

Good info:cheers:

[Kilmer17]

Read up on Mustard gas and then get back to me, okay Kilmer? Specifically, find out how long it stays in the environment. Read up on what happens when mustard gas is exposed to water. Then do a Google search using these words: 1988, Iraq, Kurds.

Are you contending that Mustard gas is still in the water after 15 years?

It's obvious law isn't your field of speciality.

Aside from a personal attack, what does this mean?

Zarchoui was treated in a hospital in Baghdad, Saddam had knowledge of it. Whose law are you referring to?

Okay. How about an actual WMD? I'll take one single document that indicates that Saddam knowingly and directly assisted al Qaeda's activities.

See, there's the rub. "knowingly and directly" Just enough to provide wiggle room. The terror camp run by AL Asara was run with his knowledge certainly, but he's smart enough to not have his fingerprints on it.

A smoking gun means it's been fired. I hope we dont find any. That would mean the death of many of our soldiers.

Friday, April 04, 2003

NEAR BAGHDAD, Iraq — U.S. troops on Friday found thousands of boxes of white powder, nerve agent antidote, unidentified liquid and Arabic documents on how to engage in chemical warfare, U.S. military officials said.

Why would they have documents on Chem Warfare if they dont pssess them?

[Riggo-toni]

Code,

I would argue that there is one major difference between this operation and Clinton operations in Somalia and ex-Yugoslavia. Neither of those countries could ever realistically become a significant threat to the US or the world at large.

Let's say there was no connection between Saddam and Bin Laden, but Saddam was 6 months away from completing his first nuclear weapon. Would you consider that reason enough, in light of his past actions not to mention his ongoing sadistic cruelty, to launch a pre-emptive strike to remove him? (As a side note, I for one hope that either we or Israel bomb the nuclear enrighment facility in Iran when this war is over.)

Ultimately, I don't think this war is about oil, WMD, or Al Qaeda. I believe that our leaders are hoping for a sort of reverse-domino in the middle east, with the advent of a peaceful, prosperous, and democratic Iraq draining away what appears to be an unstoppable wave of Islamic fundamentalism spreading over the Middle East. I realize it is an ENORMOUS gamble, and is in all honesty more likely to fail than succeed, but if Iraq with its educated middle class and abundant natural resources can overcome all of its ethnic prejudices and paranoias and prosper as a non-totalitarian nation, it will be the greatest foreign policy success since the end of the cold war.

[codeorama]

Originally posted by riggo-toni

Code,

I would argue that there is one major difference between this operation and Clinton operations in Somalia and ex-Yugoslavia. Neither of those countries could ever realistically become a significant threat to the US or the world at large.

Let's say there was no connection between Saddam and Bin Laden, but Saddam was 6 months away from completing his first nuclear weapon. Would you consider that reason enough, in light of his past actions not to mention his ongoing sadistic cruelty, to launch a pre-emptive strike to remove him? (As a side note, I for one hope that either we or Israel bomb the nuclear enrighment facility in Iran when this war is over.)

Ultimately, I don't think this war is about oil, WMD, or Al Qaeda. I believe that our leaders are hoping for a sort of reverse-domino in the middle east, with the advent of a peaceful, prosperous, and democratic Iraq draining away what appears to be an unstoppable wave of Islamic fundamentalism spreading over the Middle East. I realize it is an ENORMOUS gamble, and is in all honesty more likely to fail than succeed, but if Iraq with its educated middle class and abundant natural resources can overcome all of its ethnic prejudices and paranoias and prosper as a non-totalitarian nation, it will be the greatest foreign policy success since the end of the cold war.

All those are excellent points and I can't outright disagree with you, but I believe that nukes are for prevention. Everyone that has then does because it prevents another country from attacking them. The US is the only country in history to use atomic weapons and that was only because we did not have to fear Japan using them against us.. (I am not saying I was against the bombings, I was for them, I think it saved tons of lives on both sides).. I'm just making the point that if Japan had Nukes back then, we would have never used them.

I agree that Saddam is a brutal dictator, but even if he had Nukes, he wouldn't use them against the US in my opinion. Why? Because he can't be a brutal dictator if he's dead. My question is: If we continue to attack each country that develops nukes in the future, where does it end? I'd be willing to bet that quite a few countries are on the verge of having their own nuke programs.. there are former soviet scientists that need jobs.. I'm not saying my opinion is the correct opinion (I'm glad I'm not a politican) but the odds are in favor that more countries will have nukes, so if we don't agree with it, do we go to war with all of them?

[JackC]

Kilmer,

Let's pick up some stuff from N Iraq and some stuff from S Iraq and some other stuff we just happened to bring along and put it in Baghdad. Take a picture of it, than blow it up!

History and truth is written by the victors baby!

[Kilmer17]

Jack, You may have a point. It seems to me that even though we are taking extraordinary efforts to protect civilians and the infrastructure, the Arab press reports nothing but OUR "atrocities" Why bother anymore

[TheKurp]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

Are you contending that Mustard gas is still in the water after 15 years?

No, what I'm asking is that you educate yourself about mustard agents. Read how Iraq delivered mustard agents when it was used in 1988. Connect the dots and when you're done, you'll discover that if the intent was to poison U.S. troops they wouldn't use the Euphrates as the delivery mechanism. Also ask yourself why other news media aren't carrying this story.

I think it's far more likely that if mustard agents are indeed present in the Euphrates, it was dumped there to get rid of evidence. Of course your point that Iraq wasn't allowed under U.N. resolutions to possess mustard gas remains valid. But again, delivery mechanism and the intent is part of what defines a WMD.

Aside from a personal attack, what does this mean?

It means that Baghdad is a city with 5 million people. Don't you think it's a stretch that Saddam has tabs on all visitors in and out of Baghdad?

Zarchoui was treated in a hospital in Baghdad, Saddam had knowledge of it.

Really? I think what's known is that al-Zarqawi showed up at a Baghdad hospital, got treatment for a shattered leg, and then left Iraq. You show me a link that states Saddam knew of his presence in Iraq and I'll stand corrected. Remember now, I'll actually read the link you provide so don't fabricate the text, okay?

See, there's the rub. "knowingly and directly" Just enough to provide wiggle room. The terror camp run by AL Asara was run with his knowledge certainly, but he's smart enough to not have his fingerprints on it.

Again I'll state the obvious, law isn't a subject with which you are intimately familiar.

Friday, April 04, 2003

NEAR BAGHDAD, Iraq — U.S. troops on Friday found thousands of boxes of white powder, nerve agent antidote, unidentified liquid and Arabic documents on how to engage in chemical warfare, U.S. military officials said.

Why would they have documents on Chem Warfare if they dont pssess them?

I'll ask a tongue-in-cheek question here. Do any of the U.N. resolutions state that Iraq is not to have within its borders documents on how to conduct chemical warfare?

Listen Kilmer, I don't know what you're after here. From the way I read you it appears you can justify in your mind the reasons for this war only if WMDs and/or a link between Saddam and al Qaeda is established. Otherwise, why continue to insist there is confirmed evidence of such when clearly it doesn't exist as of yet.

[Kilmer17]

When we find the WMDs, Im sure there will be people who will swear that Saddam knew nothing about their existence.

My own personal opinion is that we should remove him because he represents a threat to our country. I believe in the "Bush Doctrine" of pre emptive strikes to secure our nation. I think every radical regime should be on watch and we should systematically take them out if we feel they pose a threat to us..

It's other people, on both sides, who seem to think that the discovery of WMDs or a link to AL Queda is the only justification. Im simply trying to support their needs.

[JackC]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

Jack, You may have a point. It seems to me that even though we are taking extraordinary efforts to protect civilians and the infrastructure, the Arab press reports nothing but OUR "atrocities" Why bother anymore

You are correct my good man! Let the bombs fly!