More WMD Artillery shells found

[dohturdima]

He "did not develop" But they found the sarin shells. What you meant to say is "did not develop to its full potential". To North Corea with this one, mon ami.

[delirious]

He "did not develop" But they found the sarin shells. What you meant to say is "did not develop to its full potential". To North Corea with this one, mon ami.

No, read what he said again:

He [Saddam Hussein] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.

Secretary of State Colin Powell during a visit to Cairo, Egypt, February 24, 2001

Maybe a few artillery shells from the Iran-Iraq war aren't a "significant capability" since they can't inflict mass destruction.

[brakada]

If you saw the size of the Iraqi gun we found pointed at Israel during Gulf
War I, you might have a little more respect for Iraqi artillery ambitions.

And how many shots exactly did the gun fire during the gulf war?


If you read the article, the article also says:

Gerald Bull-s son said in the interview to the Canadian newspaper that he was not really sure, if Iraq could really create such a weapon. Michael Bull said that a country with such a hard economic state as Iraq was not likely to do something of that kind. He added, the cannons were originally meant for delivering the satellites to the orbit v that was what his father was intended to do. Such a cannon could not be a mobile weapon, and it would be very easy to destroy it with several blasts or bombs. Moreover, Michael Bull said the cannons would not be ready to shoot at once - a couple of test shots would be necessary to perform, and they will be quickly registered by the foreign satellites. He also added it takes a day or even more to load a cannon. However, Michael Bull did not know, what Saddam Hussein-s new cannon looked like: either it was really the new super-weapon, or just a imagery weapon of the psychological war that Hussein was waging against the West.

Do you really think it was that big of a threat. Iraq had the cannons "for ages" and noone really minded... If they could seriously threaten anyone, I'm sure it would have been a lot different...

[phishfood]

i agree with everything delirious said.
iraq was our 'friend' during the iraq-iran war since iran was more friend with the russians and all. we gave them lots of different things, including gas. just the reason you dont hear about it more.

also you dont hear about how we trained and equiped the afgans durning their conflict with the russians.

there was another story about gas shells a few months ago. also got little press for just that reason. they probably had a usa barcode on the side . there has been no huge wmd factories or mobile labs that powell had such a nice diagram of.

oh and fear the huge cannon.

[delirious]

iraq was our 'friend' during the iraq-iran war since iran was more friend with the russians and all. we gave them lots of different things, including gas. just the reason you dont hear about it more.

During the Iran-Iraq war, Iraq received the lion's share of American support because at the time Iran was regarded as the greater threat to U.S. interests. According to a 1994 Senate report, private American suppliers, licensed by the U.S. Department of Commerce, exported a witch's brew of biological and chemical materials to Iraq from 1985 through1989 . Among the biological materials, which often produce slow, agonizing death, were:

* Bacillus Anthracis, cause of anthrax.

* Clostridium Botulinum, a source of botulinum toxin.

* Histoplasma Capsulatam, cause of a disease attacking lungs, brain, spinal cord, and heart.

* Brucella Melitensis, a bacteria that can damage major organs.

* Clostridium Perfringens, a highly toxic bacteria causing systemic illness.

* Clostridium tetani, a highly toxigenic substance.

Also on the list: Escherichia coli (E. coli), genetic materials, human and bacterial DNA, and dozens of other pathogenic biological agents. "These biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction," the Senate report stated. "It was later learned that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the United Nations inspectors found and removed from the Iraqi biological warfare program."

The report noted further that U.S. exports to Iraq included the precursors to chemical-warfare agents, plans for chemical and biological warfare production facilities, and chemical-warhead filling equipment.

The exports continued to at least November28 ,1989 , despite evidence that Iraq was engaging in chemical and biological warfare against Iranians and Kurds since as early as1984 .

[Jenks]

QUOTES to remember;

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has .. chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

SO NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES?

[delirious]

SO NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES?

Also remember how Bush pulled out the UN weapons inspectors saying that he had seen proof of the WMDs and in that process violated the UN charter and international law.

That's was Bush's decision which you can't blame the Democrats for.

[Jenks]

UN, lmao. Those inspectors couldn't find the crack in my ass.

Still tho, funny how you blatantly disregarded the entire post about democrats flip flopping as usual, and went for the one bush slant.

That's politics for ya.

[evangelion]

UN, lmao. Those inspectors couldn't find the crack in my ass.

Still tho, funny how you blatantly disregarded the entire post about democrats flip flopping as usual, and went for the one bush slant.

That's politics for ya.

No, that's liberals for ya. Say what is popular at the time. What would Kerry stand to gain from supporting the war now. His whole line is to do and say whatever is the opposite of Bush. So what if he said the EXACT OPPOSITE just a few years earlier.

Sometimes I actually hope Kerry gets elected just so when this country and the Iraq situation goes to total shit I can sit back and listen to all the liberals backtrack and say they never supported him or that his ideas would never have worked or whatever. And then I smack myself back to reality.

[Jenks]

^^^lol, i'd like to see it happen in theory, but i wouldn't want to see the world with Kerry running it in reality.

[mylexicon]

Gerald Bull-s son said in the interview to the Canadian newspaper that he was not really sure, if Iraq could really create such a weapon. Michael Bull said that a country with such a hard economic state as Iraq was not likely to do something of that kind. He added, the cannons were originally meant for delivering the satellites to the orbit v that was what his father was intended to do. Such a cannon could not be a mobile weapon, and it would be very easy to destroy it with several blasts or bombs. Moreover, Michael Bull said the cannons would not be ready to shoot at once - a couple of test shots would be necessary to perform, and they will be quickly registered by the foreign satellites. He also added it takes a day or even more to load a cannon. However, Michael Bull did not know, what Saddam Hussein-s new cannon looked like: either it was really the new super-weapon, or just a imagery weapon of the psychological war that Hussein was waging against the West.

Gerald Bull was eliminated by Moussad for helping Iraq build the cannon.
In GWI Iraq believed it had sufficient Air Force capability to defend such
a weapon against Israel and up until they saw mr. B-2 they probably
felt they could have kept America away too.

"We know where they are. They?re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
Rumsfeld

This was according to the satellit images that at the time were classified
but now have been released through the recent series of U.N. inspector
hearings and reports that said there was evidence of uninspected weapons facilities.
Turns out nothing was there when we arrived, sucks, but unless someone
was doctoring U.N. inspection documents under the watchful eye of Blix,
something was there at some point.

"He [Saddam Hussein] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."
Secretary of State Colin Powell during a visit to Cairo, Egypt, February 24, 2001

Arabs have always wanted sanctions lifted from Iraq and have always
wanted the U.N. to leave the Middle East. Colin Powell goes over pre 911
and says. Mr. Egyptian president the sanctions are working and we are
keeping your people safe, you should continue to support U.N. presence
in the Middle East. Goodbye. Makes a lot more sense when you put it in
context. Not to mention we had not inspected Iraq at that time for
about two years when inspectors left Iraq in December 1998. Of course
Colin Powell was sent to Egypt to blow smoke up their ass.

[brakada]

QUOTES to remember;

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

What is wrong with that? A perfectly normal understandable quote. Nothing is said about what means should be used... Occupying Iraq? I think not...

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

Again, nothing is said to what amount the force should be used, and if Sadam rejected peace.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

That is true, but still nothing is said about invading Iraq. It is only said, that Iraq is a potential (OK, the greatest) threat and that actions in the region matter for American interests, but nothing was happening in Iraq when it was invaded.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

Presumption. And an incompetent advisor...

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

Need I say more? Air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites, not occupying the country.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

Duh. Who didn't know that? So is half of the world and you don't go invading them.

"Hussein has .. chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

Duh again.

As for other statements. It is true that Iraq posed a potential threat in the region. It was clear that it once possessed WMDs and means to produce them (after all, they had supplies from the USA ), but it was very unclear to what extent Sadam has developped those weapons. I am almost certain, that the Clinton administration would have changed their minds after the work of the UN inspectors and they would probably allow them to finish their works. Even if they would use military force it would probably be a couple of air and missile strikes, like they used to. IMO during the Clinton administration going to war and invading Iraq was not an option. Certainly not without the UN support (at least I think he appreciated it a bit more than the current administration does). As for the quotes during the Bush administration most of them are to blamed on Bush (I know, how typical of liberals). Wasn't he the one who started convincing American people that Iraq is a current threat, that Iraq definitely has a huge arsenal of WMDs and he can reach America for sure. He claimed those things a lot more seriously. All other senators just made fools out of themselves for trusting him. But if I am honest, most of the blame should be on the shoulder of your intelligence agencies. After all their information was practically worthless and with all the funding they receive... :? someone should definitely be held responsible for misleading the entire world about Iraq WMDs. But noone took responsibility.

Everyone who claimed that Iraq was the greatest threat to US security and that war was inevitable, is IMHO an idiot... At least everyone who claimed that after the UN expectors left. Whether a liberal or a conservative... I don't really care.

SO NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES?

Bush played a great part in convincing other people about the neccessity of the Iraq campaign, so he deserves most of the blame. But if I am honest most of the congress should be blamed for it, including democrats.

[brakada]

Sometimes I actually hope Kerry gets elected

Well, vote for him and we'll see, won't we?

[evangelion]

Sometimes I actually hope Kerry gets elected

Well, vote for him and we'll see, won't we?

The chances of that happening are about as likely as Kerry sticking to something he says longer than one speech.

[FM]

No, that's liberals for ya. Say what is popular at the time. What would Kerry stand to gain from supporting the war now. His whole line is to do and say whatever is the opposite of Bush. So what if he said the EXACT OPPOSITE just a few years earlier.

Sometimes I actually hope Kerry gets elected just so when this country and the Iraq situation goes to total shit I can sit back and listen to all the liberals backtrack and say they never supported him or that his ideas would never have worked or whatever. And then I smack myself back to reality.

That'd be a great fantasy world.. and I'd like to see that...but then again, I'd hate to see this country REALLY hit rock bottom...things are bad enough as is in most cases