Wednesday, June 11, 2003

When looting does not happen, what can be done. I bet a US museum loses more than this in a decade.
No WMD's in Iraq.

That being said here is an interesting quote:

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

WMDs have not been found in Iraq as of today, I like to call them Weapons of Mass Disappearance, these means we have not found canisters of anthrax or small pox.. According to Time to name one source only 1/3 of suspected sites have been searched. After they look into the other 2/3 they may still find nothing, but it is a little early to tell. Not my favorite article on weapons of mass disappearance but here it is:


The above article does vindicate itself in the end.

A better article is:


They have however found labs to make bio weapons, they were dual use, meaning they could make medicine with them or helium for their weather balloons, or additionally fertilizer. Odd thing they transported these things on military vehicles, and went through the trouble of hiding them. Also these labs were not reported to the UN by Iraq, according to Blix. Considering that Saddam withheld medicine from dying children, according to the Seattle Times I am ruling out medicine or vaccines. He was not the biggest humanitarian. Iraq is not exactly known for its farming since it imports food, so I am ruling out fertilizer, as far as helium, well what can be said there.



The logical conclusion since these labs were we make it as you order it labs, or why have them. Not much of a stretch to think they were designed to do.

Also take into account that Iraq has a history of using chemical / biological weapons, and were not very shy about hiding this fact in the past. They were used against Iran when Iraq was losing the war. After Iraq used them it was able to get a favorable truce in a war it was losing. They used them against the Shiites in their uprising in the early 90s and also against the Kurds. These are not facts that are questionable, and no one is denying them. UN Inspectors were kicked out in the late 90s and when they were kicked out they had a catalogue of WMDs that Iraq had. It was verified that they previously had them by the UN, but now we should believe that Saddam, just because, got rid of them. This is hard to believe specially considering that these were his trump card in putting down rebellions and fighting a war with Iran in the past.

Hell, even Iran agrees that Iraq had WMD recently:


As far as a nuclear capability Iraq, an oil rich country has had two nuclear reactors, the last one blown up by the Israelis. Why a nuclear reactor in an oil rich country, specially considering they heavily overpaid the French for their reactors.? To make a nuclear weapon, the ultimate trump card. This was also confirmed by Khazir Hamza, one of the heads of that project in Iraq that defected. More interesting according to this article, the German Intelligence is one of the sources that said that Iraq could go nuclear in the next few years: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26671-2003Jun6.html

I like the post, after all they discovered Watergate, another subject there.

All in all the conclusion is they had them, they used them, after inspectors left it is doubtful they got rid of them.

As far as predictions of the war we should examine them all. Where is the increase in terrorist acts? I constantly heard that there would be half a million casualties, all civilian, in its last days Iraq admitted there were 1,350 casualties, and they tend to exaggerate. What happened to Black Hawk Down all over Baghdad? Well considering our casualty list that did not happen either. What happened to destabilizing the whole region, business as usual in the Middle East, sadly enough. Iraq is a fucking mess, no doubt and that is another story, but fighting only ended 9 weeks ago. We may even fuck it up but it is early to tell.

Considering all of the mass graves they found there is no doubt Saddam should have been out of power. That and every other disgusting thing he did while in power. Last mass grave was full of 200 children, some buried with their dolls. Is that alone not a good reason to go in and get this man out of power. How about having 100 kids in prison because the parents are not good Bathist, that a good reason? Where was the UN for those people getting killed, the US came late but the UN is no where to be found. Was there even a motion to condemn Saddam’s actions in the UN.

Was there a rally for those getting murdered that I did not hear about. A rally calling for Liberty in Iraq, Freedom to the Iraqi People, well good luck. This is why you never saw any Iraqis at anti-war rallies. If anything some volunteered to help the arm forces. When they did have rallies it was for war, or to celebrate the fall of Saddam. How can you have a movement for the Iraqi people when they are not with you. It would be like having an Immigrant movement, that no Immigrant wants to join. Someone asked me why I think I know what Iraqi’s wanted, as if they were some group that all agreed on everything. By reading what they write, by looking at their actions.

Here is one example of an Iraqi who was not at an anti-War rally:


Dearborne, Michigan, largest Iraq community in the U.S.




Kids in graves:


Adults in Graves.

To me the war was to liberate. If you think it was about oil, you have a point. The point is best made here:


Odd who was really benefiting from food for oil aka food for palaces.

BTW the reason I do not trust CNN in Iraq is because of this:
http://www.nytimes.com/auth/login?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/11/opinion/11JORD.html&OQ=exQ3D1050638400Q26enQ3Dea21e8c88feae21cQ26eiQ3D5062Q26partnerQ3DGOOGLE sorry if it makes you register.

On a Philo / Gots to be real Note:

I once called myself a liberal, I believed that all human beings deserve to have basic human rights and to self govern. I still am one. I will not call myself one because others who call themselves liberals, not all but the loud ones, said that it was ok to have an evil man like Saddam in charge of Iraq. That to maintain stability in the region other human beings should suffer and not be free, since this is the logical outcome of having Saddam as a ruler. On top of that the racist notion that since they had only known oppression they did not mind Saddam and wanted to actually have him as their leader. Yes someone thinks that low of them, but not me. That is not a liberal person with these idas but a fascist, the line of thinking coming down to: as long as it is not happening to them and it keeps things ok for them, then those who suffer will, hence stability. I prefer to live in a world were our white elephant of a military will invade a place like Iraq and North Korea and put them on a road to govern themselves. If you believe that people should have liberty and are a liberal than you believe that people must self govern, it is the only form of government in which a society can assure that it keeps its freedoms. We have yet to find a good model that involves a kind dictatorship that assures freedom for all.

It is interesting to note who else claimed Iraq had WMD’s:

Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. 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." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

Tuesday, June 10, 2003

Well look here, Saddam used dying children as propaganda an intentionally withheld medicine from them. Yet we still heard that sanctions were causing children to die.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?