UN finds WMD missing from 109 sites in Iraq

Interesting how these weapons that didn't exist are now missing. Source

Tal, if you would have actually read the full article you would have come across this:

quote:

---

He said the missing material can be used for legitimate purposes. "However, they can also be utilized for prohibited purposes if in a good state of repair."

---

So, nobody is talking about WMD now going missing. They are talking about items going missing that can be used for legit purposes, which also COULD be used for prohibited purposes. I hope this clears things up a little.

The WHOLE FRIGGIN article is about the missing material!!!!!!!I read the whole article Hrun. I like how you pick the one sentence out that "kinda" supports your position.Let's look at more of the article. The bilogical sites were less damaged than the chemical and missle sites. That's pretty cut and dry there, not to mention banned long range missles.But in case you think that it was all simply for civillian use... Too bad this is a U.N. report, or you could just dismiss it altogether as right ring news propoganda.

---

If you live in Europe, the US has either saved your ass or kicked your ass.
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

If I recall correctly, there was no doubt that Saddam Hussein wanted, very much, a development program to produce WMDs, and that there may have been some material and equipment relevant to this purpose.The question is whether Iraq had a viable program such that WMDs were an imminent threat, requiring a military attack (and the inevitable civilian casualties) to stop.Nothing in that article disputes any position held by those who opposed the war.

He used them on his own people.

---

If you live in Europe, the US has either saved your ass or kicked your ass.
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

The story is clearly about material that could be used to produce WMDsFor instance the missile sites would be these: Production sites - not missile bases. Equipment to produce missiles - not missiles.The report does not mention ANY actual WMD.But of course, you've read the report, so you already know that. Right ?

Ahhh, so that's why you chose to write the headline: UN finds WMD missing... That makes perfect sense to me.And good you mention the long-range missiles. If you would care to remember, it was actually the UN inspectors who were overseeing the dismantling of just these missiles right before the war started.And I don't really know what you mean by cut and dry. They are talking about biological and chemical sites. As said before, these are sites where material can be produced that has civilian use and could be used in a WMD program.And, if you still think that there were WMD in Iraq like you indicate in your headline, then read the reports commissioned by this administration authored by David Kay and Charles Dulfer. Or listen to the President when he talks about "weapons of mass destruction-related programme activities".But of course, the Presidents words, the Kay report and the Dulfer report are just misguided loony liberal leftist propaganda.

That's the title of the story and it is dead accurate.So pretty much no matter what we find or what surfaces you'll never be satisfied. Unless we find a picture of Saddam next to the intercontinental-nuclear-ballistic missle aimed-ready-to-fire at Washington D.C. and smoking a stogey with Bin Laden.And you people were all in a tizzy with W, wondering why the dots weren't connected for 911?This message has been edited by Tal, 06-03-2005 02:17 PMThis message has been edited by Tal, 06-03-2005 02:18 PM

---

If you live in Europe, the US has either saved your ass or kicked your ass.
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

Ahh, the shifting of the goal posts. Why don't you just admit that you pulled the title of the topic out of thin air.In any case, what would have to happen that you are convinced there were no WMD. The President would have to admit there were none? His inspectors, with over a year of time, unlimited access and hundreds of millions of dollars have to come to the conclusion that there were none The CIA would have to admit that they made a huge mistake? Tony Blair would have to admit that there were none? What else do you want?Edit: Ahh, I just saw your edidet message: What do you know about what I did after 9/11 and who I was in a tizzy with? I merely questioned your sensationalist headline for an article that does not support your initial statements. And you don't seem to see anything wrong with it.How about this one: Extra, Extra! All US military personell are torturers! And then I link you to a story about an incident in which a single soldiers was convicted because of practices that are tantamount to torture. Would you think it a good headline? Would you swallow my argument saying: What else do you want? A picture of Rumsfeld and Bush shoving a glowing metal poker into a prisoners eye?This message has been edited by Hrun, 06-03-2005 02:30 PM

Well, we do have a photo of Saddam next to Donald Rumsfeld.Moose

Nobody is arguing against the article. What is in dispute is your assertion that WEAPONS have gone missing.Thread title

quote:

---

UN finds WMD missing from 109 sites in Iraq

---

From Message 1

quote:

---

Interesting how these weapons that didn't exist are now missing.

---

But the article doesn't talk about weapons.

I'm not MI, but I might classify those as weapons.

---

If you live in Europe, the US has either saved your ass or kicked your ass.
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

Clasify WHAT as weapons ? Scrap metal ? Fermenters ?You claimed that the article said that WMD's had gone missing.It didn't.What more is there to say ?

Ahh, another shift of the goalposts. Long range missiles=WMD.Here is my new headline: Extra, Extra! US soldiers use WMD as a matter of policy in Iraq!Well, I don't really have evidence that they do so. But a gun is a weapon, right?

Tal, you are a gem. Master of spin. You take an article which is critical of the US and its failure to secure known areas of hazardous material, not to mention obfuscating UN oversight, and try to make it look like Bush was correct about WMDs.Lets look at this again shall we? The sites under discussion in your article were known by the UN and not an issue used by Bush and Co. Indeed they were part of the argument that UN teams had been doing a good job before.That's how UNMOVIC could use satellites to monitor the sites after their removal by the US, so that they could continue their monitoring tasks. From your own article... In my many back and forths with you on this topic, I have mentioned this issue, so your attempt to use it now reeks of fraud and/or sheer ignorance. The UN warned the US to protect these sites because their oversight was being removed, and the US failed to protect those sites.It was worried, and then confirmed, that during the periods of lawlessness after the invasion that the stored materials were being removed and entering the populace. All your article does is state that UNMOVIC now has greater estimates of how much has been taken due to our negligence and from how many previously secured UN areas.This is an indictment of our failure to prevent, and to some degree our having caused, the spread of material that can be used for WMDs which had previously been stored and protected by the UN.The material Bush and Co were speaking about were the unknown caches which had not been revealed or stored by Iraq and UNMOVIC. Material made before 1991 (which even I was surprised to see no longer existed at all) and more importantly new stuff from ongoing programs. This was the claim by Powell.It continues to amaze me how you don't even understand what your own position should be, much less how it has already been undercut. Even Bush has renounced the position you are trying to defend. The war is over soldier, you lost, time to put down your lance. Huh? Don Quixote rides again!

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)