USA lied about Iraq's weapons

Aftonposten ^ | February 4 2004 | Johathan Tisdale

[Slings and Arrows]

Fee fi foe foll - I smell the blood of a Euro-troll!

[fdsa2]

Yes, I am from Europe!?

[MEG33]

Cool it.I don't think he's a troll ..just someone with a different view of the UN(barf) than I have.We were also wrong about Iran's and Libya's weapons..they had more!

[fdsa2]

Clinton & Co yes, but as a Swede Hans Blix never. No one has ever produced any evidence of him lying (missing N. Korea sure) but lying?

I find his oriental rug-fetish a bit weird though.

[The_Victor]

OK, since your still here and not, apparently, a troll...

...said that the USA's basis for going to war is thin indeed, and called it a slap in the face to the United Nations weapons inspectors.

How is this possible, since the weapons inspectors had been expelled from Iraq for several years prior to the threat of war?

Much of what has been claimed about WMDs has proven to be sheer nonsense.

Proven!? I have yet to see the poof that the evidence was nonsense. Saddam had the delivery systems (shells, rockets, and bombs, all found stockpiled but unfilled). The only missing item is the chem or bio toxins themselves. 95% of the Bush administrations claim has in fact been proven true. The development programs were ongoing, and delivery systems were in place.

[general_re]

...but as a Swede Hans Blix never

I see. How convenient. The Swede gets a pass because, after all, he's a Swede. But everyone else is lying, you betcha.

Ih this what passes for Swedish nationalism in the wake of Bjorn Borg and Stefan Edberg retiring? Couldn't you find another cheesy disco band to rally around instead?

[general_re]

Ih = is

[CougarGA7]

"It is a weary country with many weary people. The people want peace," Siljeholm said.

And that's exactly what we are giving them. And in addition we are also throwing in sovereignty, and freedom.

[fdsa2]

I guess I could (hives ok?), but still the man is still to be caught lying.

I voted for "his" party (slightly right ving) in the election before the last. Many people in Sweden, regardless of their political beliefs truly admire him for his work ethics, sincerety, "exactness".

His main critic (which has been seen in media) is a failed academic, still envious of the party choosing Blix for advancement before him.

[Blood of Tyrants]

This first paragraph is for you specifically, fdsa2, the rest is for the Bush haters, DU trolls, and liberal idiots. If you dared to listen to George Bush, his PRIMARY REASON for the war was a REGIEME CHANGE to make the whole world safer. The very same terrorist who were planning bombings in the U.S., Paris, Germany, and even Sweden are now in Iraq trying to earn their pass to Allah's Whorehouse Heaven by murdering innocent Iraqis and our soldiers.

All we ask is for enough ground to bury our dead and all we get for their blood is a bunch of freaking ingrates griping and whining that Bush lied to them and complainng that Bush "squanderd the goodwill" gained from the 9/11 murders by not playing the victim for all it was worth. You idiots are prime candidates for watching by the authorities for Munchausen's syndrome by-proxy.

Americans as a whole don't play that sh#t. We greive for our dead and then we kick ass, often at the same time. I'll tell you what, just shut up and get the hell out of the way and let your betters keep your sorry butts free because you will certainly sell your freedom to the first tyrant who will promise you the absolute safety of slavery.

[fdsa2]

Trollremark does not bother me, its part of our traditional stories.

How is this possible, since the weapons inspectors had been expelled from Iraq for several years prior to the threat of war, you asked?

Well, for example the UN (sec. council!) received what was considered a rather unusual frank account of the various programs etc. in the time leading up to the war by Iraq. As of day one of the war US w. inspectors were on the ground but has returned home already.

No one argues that Iraq did not have! wmds and delivery systems and still to some respect have but the question is (and has been in other threads) was the accounts given by Powell & Co before the UN etc. correct? And I don´t mean semantically.

I argue that the claims is not 95 percent true. And the missing bio and toxins are important. If stockpiles etc. are found I will admit I was wrong and shut up, but even Rice/Way etc. acknowlegdges that the claims might have been false (the reason is not the issue).

What I see as the main problem is that no one from the US dares to say, ok so we were not completely wright in that respect but the war was just anyway. Blair has done so but he is the true spinmesister lefty bulls****er of Europe and his credibility is zero. I think that the longer you drag it out the more trouble the whole mess will cause in the election this fall.

[b4its2late]

"It is a weary country with many weary people. The people want peace," Siljeholm said.

And just think where this "weary country" and its "weary people" would be if Saddam was still standing up in his balconey shooting his shotgun in the air........ They sure as hell wouldn't be living in peace (but it is coming if they want it), but still living in fear.

And sure, it's easy for this Siljeholm guy to say all this from his armchair in Boston, or from his vacation flat in Florida..... He can thank his lucky stars.

[fdsa2]

True: hindsight is always 20/20 and Iraq is better of now (see former replies) but the issue won´t go away despite all the ranting here, and it must be met effectively.

The question is how?

[new cruelty]

The question is why?

More over, there are the words of others here in the United States that I would trust before looking abroad.

Rumsfeld says W-M-D may still be found in Iraq

Capitol Hill-AP -- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld says it is too early to say Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction before the U-S invasion last year.

Rumsfeld told the Senate Armed Services Committee that U-S weapons inspectors need more time to reach a final conclusion about whether chemical and biological weapons existed in Iraq before the war.

Rumsfeld says he is confident that prewar intelligence was not manipulated by the administration to justify its war aims.

He offered several theories on why no weapons have been discovered, starting with the possibility that banned arms never existed. Rumsfeld called that "possible, but not likely."

Rumsfeld also said Iraq could have hidden some of the banned weapons. He told lawmakers that the hole in which Saddam Hussein was found "was big enough to hold biological weapons to kill thousands" of people.

He says such objects, "once buried, can stay buried."

[new cruelty]

Cyanide Salt Block Found in Iraq

[fdsa2]

Why not? my view is that freedom and liberty for Iraqies was never the main rationale for going to war, WMD was (remeber the speeches).

If not, why would Rumsfeld stick to the mantra? And why are the Weapons Inspectors reported to have concluded their work and returned to the US?

And remember Rumsfeld is only saying that the administration did not sex up the WMD intelligence, not that the intelligence was wrong.

I found it strange that high-ranking intelligence people on both sides of the atlantic (as late as today with Brian Jones in the UK) questions the validity of this?

I guess the "stay hidden" argument is plausible and we will see but I still like to see a new policy concerning this.

[new cruelty]

my view is that freedom and liberty for Iraqies was never the main rationale for going to war, WMD was (remeber the speeches).

My view is that the rationale for going to war was Saddam's non-compliance with resolution 1441, which warned Iraq that "it will face serious consequences" if it continues to violate its obligations as spelled out in the resolution.

[fdsa2]

Which was related to WMD (see earlier post about Iraq information package to security council)! Not liberty and freedom.

[varon]

The problem was that Iraq was not in compliance with the inspections program that they had agreed to which would allow the U.N. to monitor the situation. Without unimpeded inspections the U.N. inspectors could not verify compliance with the disarmament terms.

So, in essence, war was waged because the inspectors didn't find nor Saddam did reveal WMD that he didn't have. Am I interpreting your statement correctly?

[new cruelty]

No one argues that Iraq did not have! wmds and delivery systems and still to some respect have but the question is (and has been in other threads) was the accounts given by Powell & Co before the UN etc. correct? And I don´t mean semantically.

I argue that the claims is not 95 percent true. And the missing bio and toxins are important. If stockpiles etc. are found I will admit I was wrong and shut up, but even Rice/Way etc. acknowlegdges that the claims might have been false (the reason is not the issue).

I am sorry, it is hard for me to understand your comments. It sounds like you are arguing with yourself and losing.

If I follow you correctly ...

On one hand, you acknowledge that Iraq had wmds, BUT on the other, you argue that Powell lied to the UN. YET you claim the missing bio and toxins are important and if found you will be quite BUT you point out that even Rice acknowledges that the claims might have been false AND the problem you see is that no one from the US dares to say, "ok so we were not completely wright in that respect but the war was just anyway."

That said...

While the UN resolutions place the burden on Iraq to prove that all of the wmds were destroyed, you would rather place the burden of proof of the existence of wmds on the United States and Britain. And if the United States and Britain cannot prove there are wmds, then they were lying all along. By that logic, that is akin to saying that for the period of time that we could not find him, saddam hussein did not exist. Moreover, to this day, bin laden does not exist because we have not found him.