UN says that it is possible that Saddam did have WMDs

[rklenseth]

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribun ... ing_1.html

UN inspectors: Saddam shipped out WMD before war and after



SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM
Friday, June 11, 2004
The United Nations has determined that Saddam Hussein shipped weapons of mass destruction components as well as medium-range ballistic missiles before, during and after the U.S.-led war against Iraq in 2003.

The UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission briefed the Security Council on new findings that could help trace the whereabouts of Saddam's missile and WMD program.

The briefing contained satellite photographs that demonstrated the speed with which Saddam dismantled his missile and WMD sites before and during the war. Council members were shown photographs of a ballistic missile site outside Baghdad in May 2003, and then saw a satellite image of the same location in February 2004, in which facilities had disappeared.

UNMOVIC acting executive chairman Demetrius Perricos told the council on June 9 that "the only controls at the borders are for the weight of the scrap metal, and to check whether there are any explosive or radioactive materials within the scrap," Middle East Newsline reported.
"It's being exported," Perricos said after the briefing. "It's being traded out. And there is a large variety of scrap metal from very new to very old, and slowly, it seems the country is depleted of metal."

"The removal of these materials from Iraq raises concerns with regard to proliferation risks," Perricos told the council. Perricos also reported that inspectors found Iraqi WMD and missile components shipped abroad that still contained UN inspection tags.

He said the Iraqi facilities were dismantled and sent both to Europe and around the Middle East. at the rate of about 1,000 tons of metal a month. Destionations included Jordan, the Netherlands and Turkey.

The Baghdad missile site contained a range of WMD and dual-use components, UN officials said. They included missile components, reactor vessel and fermenters – the latter required for the production of chemical and biological warheads.

"It raises the question of what happened to the dual-use equipment, where is it now and what is it being used for," Ewen Buchanan, Perricos's spokesman, said. "You can make all kinds of pharmaceutical and medicinal products with a fermenter. You can also use it to breed anthrax."

The UNMOVIC report said Iraqi missiles were dismantled and exported to such countries as Jordan, the Netherlands and Turkey. In the Dutch city of Rotterdam, an SA-2 surface-to-air missile, one of at least 12, was discovered in a junk yard, replete with UN tags. In Jordan, UN inspectors found 20 SA-2 engines as well as components for solid-fuel for missiles.

"The problem for us is that we don't know what may have passed through these yards and other yards elsewhere," Buchanan said. "We can't really assess the significance and don't know the full extent of activity that could be going on there or with others of Iraq's neighbors."

UN inspectors have assessed that the SA-2 and the short-range Al Samoud surface-to-surface missile were shipped abroad by agents of the Saddam regime. Buchanan said UNMOVIC plans to inspect other sites, including in Turkey.

In April, International Atomic Energy Agency director-general Mohammed El Baradei said material from Iraqi nuclear facilities were being smuggled out of the country.

[kronos]

Well i think that it was stupid of the americans to think that he would just leave WMD and the launch facilites just lying around. Im not surprised that he dismanteled them, i would if i were in his position.

[Pirog]

Why would this come out this late?
I'm still sceptical...although it wouldn't be a total shock for me if he had WMDs. It's strange that he didn't use them though.

[rklenseth]

The US has been saying this for a while since they took Baghdad. Problem is that no one believed them. Now this is the first confirmation from the UN that what the US has been saying all along might be true.

Maybe he did have plans to use them but never had time to get the orders out before losing communications. Remember we did pull him out of a hole in the ground.

I don't think he would have used them in the beginning just in case he was able to beat the US and her allies because using WMDs would have dragged the rest of the world into the war and he would have lost. But by the time he was losing, it was already too late. He was probably on the run and he couldn't communicate because it would most likely give away his position.

I just hope they haven't gotten into the hands of the likes of Osama. Now if they aren't in Iraq anymore then we all could have some major problems.

[The Hunter]

Geez, RKL, stop this nonsense, what the hell are you trying to prove? Are you so set on proving the US did the right thing by invading iraq?

Post these stupid posts on www,USmilitairy.com or whatever warmonger site you can find. You know it's a touchy subject and every "US vs Iraq" gets on the verge of ending up in a flame war.

I for one, don't believe the US nor the UN, as they have proven to be no more than a puppet on several occasions.

BTW: Did they already finish that statue in honour of the US soldiers? Or have they detonated it in the meantime?

[Pirog]

Lenseth>

Well, that the Americans have claimed it all along hardly surprises anyone...but they have allready admitted that much of their intel was wrong or exagerated so I hope they won't have the stomach to say "we told you so" if they find some.

But I was personally surprised that Saddam didn't have any WMDs when the war started. It was never about that for me...I don't see why small countries shouldn't be able to stock up on similar weapons that the larger countries have.
A world wide ban on WMDs would have been much easier to uphold if USA, Europe and other countries destroyed their own supplies.

[rklenseth]

Geez, RKL, stop this nonsense, what the hell are you trying to prove? Are you so set on proving the US did the right thing by invading iraq?

Post these stupid posts on www,USmilitairy.com or whatever warmonger site you can find. You know it's a touchy subject and every "US vs Iraq" gets on the verge of ending up in a flame war.

I for one, don't believe the US nor the UN, as they have proven to be no more than a puppet on several occasions.

BTW: Did they already finish that statue in honour of the US soldiers? Or have they detonated it in the meantime?

And I have not been involved in those flame wars. Plus, I don't like going to sites where everyone agrees the right thing was done. Nothing is learned that way. Believe or not, I like to hear Pirog's or anyone elses responses on these subjects because they are coming from a different perspective that I am at.

Also, I respect your opinion. You don't think the war in Iraq was the right thing and that is fine. You have the right to that opinion just as much as I have the right to my opinion.

I am not set on proving anything. I know the US and her allies invasion of Iraq was the right thing. I have got nothing to prove to anyone. I am presenting something for debate and analsys. This also to hear from someone like Pirog on the subject matter.

[rklenseth]

Lenseth>

Well, that the Americans have claimed it all along hardly surprises anyone...but they have allready admitted that much of their intel was wrong or exagerated so I hope they won't have the stomach to say "we told you so" if they find some.

But I was personally surprised that Saddam didn't have any WMDs when the war started. It was never about that for me...I don't see why small countries shouldn't be able to stock up on similar weapons that the larger countries have.
A world wide ban on WMDs would have been much easier to uphold if USA, Europe and other countries destroyed their own supplies.

The US is destroying their supplies but are doing as Russia does it because even though the Cold War is over the two don't trust each other still. That and with China's WMDs is sort of keeps us from not destroying all of them.

I personally would agree to a world wide ban of all of these weapons of mass destruction.

And a lot the intel that was proven wrong was stuff the US had originally gotten from the UN. Some of it was probably misinpretation from agents to headquarters.

Oh, by the way, listen in the news for stuff on the UN. My uncle's friend who work in the UN says that some big stuff will be coming out in a couple of months. If you think the Oil for Money program through the UN was scandalous then what will come out of the UN in the next couple of months due to internal investigations from independent groups will make that look like nothing. And my uncle's friend says it goes all the way to the top. I'll be listening but that is just a heads up if you want to know.

[Pirog]

The US is destroying their supplies but are doing as Russia does it because even though the Cold War is over the two don't trust each other still. That and with China's WMDs is sort of keeps us from not destroying all of them.

But USA has more WMDs than any other countries on this planet...so saying that you hold them just because other countries have them is a poor excuse. While the rest of the world are decreasing their supplies you government is considering building anti-missile systems that you promised the Russians not to build to prevent another Cold War, and George Bush is talking about using "tactical nukes" etc.
I think the Americans are the ones that are pressuring the other countries to keep or aquire stocks for themselves.

And a lot the intel that was proven wrong was stuff the US had originally gotten from the UN. Some of it was probably misinpretation from agents to headquarters.

I seriously doubt that, consdering the UN was against the war for the lack of evidence. UK on the other hand also used false intel...since they were in a similar situation.

Oh, by the way, listen in the news for stuff on the UN. My uncle's friend who work in the UN says that some big stuff will be coming out in a couple of months. If you think the Oil for Money program through the UN was scandalous then what will come out of the UN in the next couple of months due to internal investigations from independent groups will make that look like nothing. And my uncle's friend says it goes all the way to the top. I'll be listening but that is just a heads up if you want to know.

Ok, I will. Just to clearify...I have never claimed that the UN is an organisation working smoothly or without corruption.

And now a question for you:
Will you see Farenheit 9/11 when it comes out?

[Bran-Muffin]

And now a question for you:
Will you see Farenheit 9/11 when it comes out?

Im going to try and make it to that.... havnt been able to make it to many films lately though.

Now my question

Whats yoru reason for asking?

[Junesun]

But USA has more WMDs than any other countries on this planet...so saying that you hold them just because other countries have them is a poor excuse.

I definitely agree with Pirog there... along the same lines, why does the USA maintain a military that is several times the size of Russia's and China's military combined (and much better equipped)? Somehow it seems to me that the military has become a purpose in itself in the USA, rather than a means to an end.

Judith

[nitefyre]

This here's in response to Junesun-mind you Pirog knows I'll disagree one way or another.

@ Junesun:

"China maintains the largest military in the world, with nearly two and a half million active troops in the People's Liberation Army (PLA). China is making a significant and growing investment in its armed forces. China's military spending is increasing at a double-digit pace, its development of more modern and capable weapons platforms and its acquisition of more sophisticated hardware from countries like Russia is expanding its strategic reach. This will likely have a significant impact on America's ability to defend its vital interests in east Asia."

[Floyd D. Spence (Chairman of the Committee of the Armed Services) July 2000]

Hence, the United States Military quantatively does not maintain a force that is larger than the People's Republic of China. You may argue that in battle, the United States Military may in conventional war be the victor. That is debatable. The Soviet Military too used to be a match, if not more so than for the United States, but of course have been downgraded in quality and quantity due to their collapse and lack of finance into the new era post the Cold War.

Yes, you are correct that the United States Senate does proportion a large amount to fund the armed services, and some would say, not even enough- but this is because the United States believe they are responsible in protecting their interests Internationally. The United States I would not reflect the Military as being a purpose to the United States, as of now, it is an all voluntary force, which makes up a very small amount of the populace. That is one of the reasons I believed help the United States to collapse the Soviet Union, as they were not spending everything based on their military, which led to their economic collapse. So Judith, I beg to differ based on the lessons from the Cold War. Not to mention the United States cut its army down by I think somewhere near 10 active divisions since the late 80's, along with major cuts in the other branches. Mr. Rumsfeld believes in a small, agile force at the Brigade level, again lightening the amount of soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen in the US Armed Services.

[Pirog]

Mufin deBranne>

Whats yoru reason for asking?

First of all...the question was directed primarily to Lenseth...so I hope he will answer it.

The reason for asking in the first place is that I think that conservatives often puts a blind eye to facts they don't like...upholding beliefs because they WANT to see the world in a certain way.

My fear is that Farenheit 9/11 will have great inpact outside USA, but that the movie amongst Americans will be seen as unpatriotic and thus people will refrain from seeing it because they rather want to live happily unknowing about certain things...

[Pirog]

Nitefyre>

Nowdays I wouldn't measure an army's strength in the number of people involved...

[rklenseth]

The US is destroying their supplies but are doing as Russia does it because even though the Cold War is over the two don't trust each other still. That and with China's WMDs is sort of keeps us from not destroying all of them.

But USA has more WMDs than any other countries on this planet...so saying that you hold them just because other countries have them is a poor excuse. While the rest of the world are decreasing their supplies you government is considering building anti-missile systems that you promised the Russians not to build to prevent another Cold War, and George Bush is talking about using "tactical nukes" etc.
I think the Americans are the ones that are pressuring the other countries to keep or aquire stocks for themselves.

And a lot the intel that was proven wrong was stuff the US had originally gotten from the UN. Some of it was probably misinpretation from agents to headquarters.

I seriously doubt that, consdering the UN was against the war for the lack of evidence. UK on the other hand also used false intel...since they were in a similar situation.

Oh, by the way, listen in the news for stuff on the UN. My uncle's friend who work in the UN says that some big stuff will be coming out in a couple of months. If you think the Oil for Money program through the UN was scandalous then what will come out of the UN in the next couple of months due to internal investigations from independent groups will make that look like nothing. And my uncle's friend says it goes all the way to the top. I'll be listening but that is just a heads up if you want to know.

Ok, I will. Just to clearify...I have never claimed that the UN is an organisation working smoothly or without corruption.

And now a question for you:
Will you see Farenheit 9/11 when it comes out?

Point 1: Yes, the US has a large number of WMDs in the form of nukes. Yes, we are getting rid of them as per treaty with Russia but we must make sure we have a few left in the case of China and even North Korea who are building nukes. Plus it is also hard to get rid of them all. There is a long process of dismantling and safely storing nuclear warheads. Otherwise there would be an enviromental disaster. Anti-missile shield (which I do agree with) is not WMDs. It shoots a missile and destroys an incoming nuclear warhead should one ever be shot at the US. It was never in a treaty that US would not build one nor was it promised. And this has really nothing to do with Russia but more with China and the growing threat of North Korea (both of which have nuclear warheads that can reach the US West Coast). But lets say Russia is taken over by a dictator which is possible and that dictator decides to use nuclear warheads against America. Plus, a missile shield would make nuclear warheads obsolete because now they would be shot down long before they get to their destination so I don't see the bad thing about that. It would mean that there is no purpose behind having them anymore.

Never heard that Bush was going to use tactical nukes except as a threat to Saddam if he used WMDs on American troops during the war.

Point 2: UN voted for action against Iraq. It was individual countries that didn't agree which made the UN support fall apart. UN voted for action against Irag and then never put the buck where the mouth was after Saddam continued to deny access for UN Weapons Inspectors. So nothing can really seriously be taken from the UN. A lot of the intel came from the UN, not all. A lot of the intel also came from other foreign countries like the UK.

And the UN bit was just to give heads up because we were on the subject of the UN. It wasn't suppose to mean anything.

I'll see Moore's movie sooner or later. I won't pay money in a theatre for it. Personally, Moore's movies spin the truth so badly that nothing of his works can be taken seriously.

Counter point: Are you going to read the book coming out this summer (can't remember the title) showing where Moore lies or spins the truth in both "Bowling for Columbine" and "Farenheit 9/11"? I'll try to find out what the title is.