Saddam 'may have bluffed' on WMDs - GoFuckYourself.com

uranidiot · 10-02-2003, 04:47 AM

He fooled you all!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3157246.stm

Saddam 'may have bluffed' on WMDs

Saddam Hussein may have been pretending to possess weapons of mass destruction, the US Congress is expected to be told by the man in charge of the US-led hunt for Iraqi weapons.

David Kay will tell the intelligence committees of both houses of Congress that Saddam pretended his battlefield commanders had chemical weapons, in order to deter invasion, according to the Washington Post.

At closed briefings on Thursday, he is also widely expected to say that so far no weapons have been found.

The BBC's Justin Webb says that, although the results are only provisional, it is fair to predict that they will not be the findings the Bush administration wanted or expected to see.

Mr Kay, a former UN weapons inspector, heads the Iraq Survey Group, which has been hunting for weapons of mass destruction since the end of the war in Iraq.

The failure of the US-led coalition to make any significant discoveries so far has led to criticism, particularly in the UK, of the decision to invade Iraq.

UK Prime Minister Tony Blair again called for patience over the search for banned weapons.

In a Thursday television interview he said: "I think people should wait, just wait until you see the report.

"This is an interim report and the issue that people should focus on is this: 'Will they disclose evidence that this is a breach of the United Nations resolutions that would have triggered a war with UN support if that information had been before the UN?'" he said.

Little to tell?

Mr Kay's report comes as Congress debates President George W Bush's request for $87bn for spending on Iraq and Afghanistan.

One element of that budget is $600m to pay for further searches for evidence that Saddam Hussein did possess weapons of mass destruction, according to the New York Times.

If the budget is approved, the ISG will boost its staff by 200 to 1,400.

According to the leaks from Mr Kay's report, Saddam Hussein sent his generals authorization to use WMDs against advancing US troops.

President Bush in turn quoted these commands, referring to "the very weapons the dictator tells the world he does not have".

However, Mr Kay's report might imply that such commands were false and deliberately intended to confuse the international community.

Release

Mr Kay will give separate addresses to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, and details of his remarks are not due to be released officially.

"I don't think he's going to have a lot to tell us," said Jay Rockefeller, the senior Democrat on the Senate committee.

Committee chairman Pat Roberts, a Republican, said he was increasingly uncertain about Iraq's alleged possession of WMDs.

"At one point I'm sure they did. Where they are now and what point they are now, I just don't know."

Some officials in the Pentagon are saying there is evidence of secret Iraqi preparations to produce chemical or biological weapons.

Mr Kay is expected to report that Saddam Hussein never abandoned his attempts to build WMDs, the Washington Post reports.

The paper says Mr Kay will also report that Iraq bought supplies that could have been used to build banned weapons, after UN inspectors left the country in 1998.

Jane Harman, the senior Democrat on the House committee, said she would try to force the release of details from Mr Kay's report.

"There is a high level of public interest in this question and I'm not sure I understand why everything must be kept confidential," she said.

KRL · 10-02-2003, 04:53 AM

Yeh sure. Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction. Really? Tell it to these folks. I'm sure they'll all agree with you.

1407 · 10-02-2003, 04:56 AM

Keep looking and
keep wasting your tax dollars

uranidiot · 10-02-2003, 05:00 AM

Why people bring up evidence from 15 years ago as something that's true now I'll never understand.

I suppose Reagan is still president too, right?

uno · 10-02-2003, 05:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by uranidiot
Why people bring up evidence from 15 years ago as something that's true now I'll never understand.

I suppose Reagan is still president too, right?

I have no idea either. It's funny that we still supported him after this and even blamed it on Iran.

The Truth Hurts · 10-02-2003, 05:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by uranidiot
Why people bring up evidence from 15 years ago as something that's true now I'll never understand.

I suppose Reagan is still president too, right?

cause you guys keep ignoring EVERYTHING that was done and said by your own democrat leaders from the end of the first gulf war, up to this one.

dj pussy · 10-02-2003, 05:07 AM

news!

Kuwait claims to have foiled attempt to smuggle $60m worth of chemical weapons and biological warheads from Iraq to a European country. Al-Siyassah adds smugglers were under surveillance and arrested ?in due time? and arms will be turned over to an FBI agent.

uno · 10-02-2003, 05:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Truth Hurts

cause you guys keep ignoring EVERYTHING that was done and said by your own democrat leaders from the end of the first gulf war, up to this one.

Who is ignoring evidence? I think the lack of evidence speaks volumes.

uranidiot · 10-02-2003, 05:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Truth Hurts

cause you guys keep ignoring EVERYTHING that was done and said by your own democrat leaders from the end of the first gulf war, up to this one.

Such as?

The Truth Hurts · 10-02-2003, 05:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by uranidiot

Such as?

go see my "memories of convenience" thread posted earlier.

link

uranidiot · 10-02-2003, 05:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Truth Hurts

go see my "memories of convenience" thread posted earlier.

If you don't feel strongly enough to post it in this thread, you must realize you don't have a strong case.

The Truth Hurts · 10-02-2003, 05:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by uranidiot

If you don't feel strongly enough to post it in this thread, you must realize you don't have a strong case.

I gave you the link.. click it...

uranidiot · 10-02-2003, 05:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by uranidiot

If you don't feel strongly enough to post it in this thread, you must realize you don't have a strong case.

The question is - if Clinton was still in power, would he have rushed us into a war with spurious evidence (that is crumbling as we speak) and with no real exit strategy?

Instead we now have Bush coming cap in hand to the UN.

One thing Clinton understood is diplomacy. And US tax payers would probably be $60 billion+ better off because of it.

Even Bush Sr. understood diplomacy. Gulf War I was a bargain for the US in comparison.

ADL Colin · 10-02-2003, 05:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by uranidiot

David Kay will tell the intelligence committees of both houses of Congress that Saddam pretended his battlefield commanders had chemical weapons, in order to deter invasion, according to the Washington Post.

I mentioned that possibility back at the beginning of the invasion. Sending fake messages to battlefield commanders over public channels has been a part of war since the invention of the radio.

jas1552 · 10-02-2003, 05:23 AM

Well, I wonder why WMDs haven't been planted as has been predicted on this board a number of times.

uranidiot · 10-02-2003, 05:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Colin

I mentioned that possibility back at the beginning of the invasion. Sending fake messages to battlefield commanders over public channels has been a part of war since the invention of the radio.

I didn't post that??

uranidiot · 10-02-2003, 05:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by jas1552
Well, I wonder why WMDs haven't been planted as has been predicted on this board a number of times.

Not enough rain?

gin · 10-02-2003, 05:30 AM

bush is a fucking idiot. the whole objective of this whole damn war was "to get sadam husane" when they couldn't get him they changed it to "destory weapons of mass dustruction" in a hurry so they could cover it up. now they find out they didn't even have weapons of mass dustruction and ended up killing half of the country. sadam husane is probably long gone, and now he is 500 times more pissed off and is probably going to blow some shit up. didn't they say some shit like the magically found "800 million dollars" inside of a whare house building in iraq? that is the biggest fucking lie ever! no fool in iraq has more then 1 million dollars let alone 800 million dollars laying around. if he did. what has this war accompilshed besides millions of people dieng and billions of dollars spent? it's all a cover up for something.. think about it

BVF · 10-02-2003, 05:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by KRL
Yeh sure. Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction. Really? Tell it to these folks. I'm sure they'll all agree with you.

Now show me how they can put that on a warhead that can reach the united states.....I'll bet you can't....I could slaughter everybody in my home with a baseball bat...does that mean that I'm a threat to you thousands of miles away and I don't even have a car?

ADL Colin · 10-02-2003, 05:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by uranidiot

Even Bush Sr. understood diplomacy. Gulf War I was a bargain for the US in comparison.

"Even" Bush Sr? Bush Sr understood diplomacy much better than either Bush Jr. or Clinton and was better at it than nearly any other president in modern times. Don't forget. He was the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.

How many times has anyone got a UN resolution authorizing of force?

George W. couldn't do it. Clinton couldn't do it so he went to NATO. George H.W. Bush did. Truman did it but only because the Soviet Union was boycotting the UN at the time.

uno · 10-02-2003, 05:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by gin
bush is a fucking idiot. the whole objective of this whole damn war was "to get sadam husane" when they couldn't get him they changed it to "destory weapons of mass dustruction" in a hurry so they could cover it up. now they find out they didn't even have weapons of mass dustruction and ended up killing half of the country. sadam husane is probably long gone, and now he is 500 times more pissed off and is probably going to blow some shit up. didn't they say some shit like the magically found "800 million dollars" inside of a whare house building in iraq? that is the biggest fucking lie ever! no fool in iraq has more then 1 million dollars let alone 800 million dollars laying around. if he did. what has this war accompilshed besides millions of people dieng and billions of dollars spent? it's all a cover up for something.. think about it

uranidiot.

uranidiot · 10-02-2003, 05:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Colin

"Even" Bush Sr?

Pedant.

jas1552 · 10-02-2003, 05:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by gin
bush is a fucking idiot. the whole objective of this whole damn war was "to get sadam husane" when they couldn't get him they changed it to "destory weapons of mass dustruction" in a hurry so they could cover it up. now they find out they didn't even have weapons of mass dustruction and ended up killing half of the country. sadam husane is probably long gone, and now he is 500 times more pissed off and is probably going to blow some shit up. didn't they say some shit like the magically found "800 million dollars" inside of a whare house building in iraq? that is the biggest fucking lie ever! no fool in iraq has more then 1 million dollars let alone 800 million dollars laying around. if he did. what has this war accompilshed besides millions of people dieng and billions of dollars spent? it's all a cover up for something.. think about it

Wow! Millions dead! Half the country.... gone! Ohhh the humanity!

uranidiot · 10-02-2003, 05:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Colin

George W. couldn't do it. Clinton couldn't do it so he went to NATO. George H.W. Bush did. Truman did it but only because the Soviet Union was boycotting the UN at the time.

NATO did the job in Kosovo, and could well have done it in Iraq if need be.

uranidiot · 10-02-2003, 05:37 AM

The question now is:

If the US is now feeling the pinch with war costs and mounting deaths, why don't they hand over political management of the country to the UN?

That's what the UN understands and has a lot of experience in.

What benefit does the US have in keeping political control of Iraq? Heaven forbid it should be profiteering from the war.

humanaut · 10-02-2003, 05:47 AM

Saddam HAD weapons in the past.. we all know that is a fact

Sometime after 1998 - after the UN inspectors were withdr^H^H^H^H^H^H kickedout of iraq, he destroyed his arsenal of doomsday weapons (or sold them to iranians/other arabs) and engineered this whole september 11 thing to get america to attack and invade, destroying their old alliances with pretty much everyone in the world and killing lots of people in the process. Also making more terrorists, because of all the arab kids without dads.

HE'S JUST THAT FUCKING EVIL.

1407 · 10-02-2003, 05:53 AM

There is no link between Sadam and september 11

even the bush adminitration admids that

uno · 10-02-2003, 05:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by humanaut
Saddam HAD weapons in the past.. we all know that is a fact

Sometime after 1998 - after the UN inspectors were withdr^H^H^H^H^H^H kickedout of iraq, he destroyed his arsenal of doomsday weapons (or sold them to iranians/other arabs) and engineered this whole september 11 thing to get america to attack and invade, destroying their old alliances with pretty much everyone in the world and killing lots of people in the process. Also making more terrorists, because of all the arab kids without dads.

HE'S JUST THAT FUCKING EVIL.

ADL Colin · 10-02-2003, 05:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by uranidiot
NATO did the job in Kosovo, and could well have done it in Iraq if need be.

I'm glad Clinton went to NATO. I think that was pretty smooth. Russia would have vetoed that and it shows much more savvy than Bush did in going to the UN.

But remember how angered Greece was saying Clinton was using NATO for a reason it wasn't intended? Remember the "Clinton is Hitler" posters being paraded through the streets of Athens. When Clinton was in Greece that year there was a subpoena to bring him to trial for war crimes (ignored). Ahh, yeah and of course the Clinton administration themselves insisted they had a right to act unilaterally in Iraq or Kosovo if needed.

Remember too the charge at the time by many that without UN approval the Kosovo campaign was illegitimate.

You're being a revisionist if you suggest that Clinton was multilateralist. I'm sure you can find some old net articles talking about "the dangers of Clinton's unilateralism" and his "undermining of the international system".

Don't believe me. Look it up.

And oh, yeah. I supported Kosovo and Iraq 1998.

uranidiot · 10-02-2003, 05:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by uno

I see your

and raise you a

uno · 10-02-2003, 05:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by uranidiot

I see your and raise you a

Maybe it was sarcasm and I'm just not picking it up as that.

uranidiot · 10-02-2003, 05:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Colin

But remember how angered Greece was saying Clinton was using NATO for a reason it wasn't intended? Remember the "Clinton is Hitler" posters being paraded through the streets of Athens. When Clinton was in Greece that year there was a subpoena to bring him to trial for war crimes (ignored). Ahh, yeah and of course the Clinton administration themselves insisted they had a right to act unilaterally in Iraq or Kosovo if needed.

People are always going to demonstrate against war.

If you're for a single moment comparing Bush's international image (VERY negative) to Clinton's, you really need to get out more.

kmanrox · 10-02-2003, 05:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BVF

Now show me how they can put that on a warhead that can reach the united states.....I'll bet you can't....I could slaughter everybody in my home with a baseball bat...does that mean that I'm a threat to you thousands of miles away and I don't even have a car?

ummm if you baseball batted your whole family... you're a threat to everyone in the world dude....

you could hop on an oceanliner castaway and go kill children in italy easily...

ADL Colin · 10-02-2003, 06:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by uranidiot

People are always going to demonstrate against war.

If you're for a single moment comparing Bush's international image (VERY negative) to Clinton's, you really need to get out more.

Where did I compare their international images?

uranidiot · 10-02-2003, 06:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Colin

Where did I compare their international images?

So you agree that they have quite different international images?

And you agree that through that, even though there was still public dissent, the Kosovo and Iraq (2) wars were perceived and accepted by the public quite differentely?

ADL Colin · 10-02-2003, 06:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by uranidiot

So you agree that they have quite different international images?

And you agree that through that, even though there was still public dissent, the Kosovo and Iraq (2) wars were perceived and accepted by the public quite differentely?

Of course they were perceived differently especially so outside the US. You'd have to be completely blind not to see that. Within the US, the Iraq war has about same amount of support as Kosovo did.

brand0n · 10-02-2003, 06:28 AM

thanks krl, great way to fuck up a good morning

KRL · 10-02-2003, 06:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by brand0n
thanks krl, great way to fuck up a good morning

What? Can't handle the real world?

How people can say Saddam doesn't have WMD's when we all know the US provided him with the ingredients to create this stuff in the first place is beyond me.

You think a man obsessed with power is going to give them up? Iraq is a huge country with a myriad of deeply hidden complexes. Whether they are indeed still in Iraq or were shipped to Syria or somewhere else, they are out there somewhere.

directfiesta · 10-02-2003, 08:51 AM

What amazes me is this " he gased his own people" .... 5000 of them.

Nothing nice about that, but much less worst than the near 200,000 iranians he did also gas, with the tacit approval of the US ( and Ronald R.)... Who said anything at that time? In fact, who even said anything about the gassed Kurds??? Not the US.

10 years later, you now bring that up as awfull and evidence that he HAS wmd... Sick logic...

BTW< I have WMD : Women of Mass Dimension....

NBDesign · 10-02-2003, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by KRL
Yeh sure. Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction. Really? Tell it to these folks. I'm sure they'll all agree with you.

He had them... we sold them to him... he used them that day... now he has no more.....

uranidiot · 10-02-2003, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by KRL

What? Can't handle the real world?

How people can say Saddam doesn't have WMD's when we all know the US provided him with the ingredients to create this stuff in the first place is beyond me.

You think a man obsessed with power is going to give them up? Iraq is a huge country with a myriad of deeply hidden complexes. Whether they are indeed still in Iraq or were shipped to Syria or somewhere else, they are out there somewhere.

Do you work for the White House now?

Scott McD · 10-02-2003, 08:59 AM

Damn....

10-02-2003, 04:47 AM	#1
uranidiot So Fucking Banned Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 566	Saddam 'may have bluffed' on WMDs He fooled you all! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3157246.stm Saddam 'may have bluffed' on WMDs Saddam Hussein may have been pretending to possess weapons of mass destruction, the US Congress is expected to be told by the man in charge of the US-led hunt for Iraqi weapons. David Kay will tell the intelligence committees of both houses of Congress that Saddam pretended his battlefield commanders had chemical weapons, in order to deter invasion, according to the Washington Post. At closed briefings on Thursday, he is also widely expected to say that so far no weapons have been found. The BBC's Justin Webb says that, although the results are only provisional, it is fair to predict that they will not be the findings the Bush administration wanted or expected to see. Mr Kay, a former UN weapons inspector, heads the Iraq Survey Group, which has been hunting for weapons of mass destruction since the end of the war in Iraq. The failure of the US-led coalition to make any significant discoveries so far has led to criticism, particularly in the UK, of the decision to invade Iraq. UK Prime Minister Tony Blair again called for patience over the search for banned weapons. In a Thursday television interview he said: "I think people should wait, just wait until you see the report. "This is an interim report and the issue that people should focus on is this: 'Will they disclose evidence that this is a breach of the United Nations resolutions that would have triggered a war with UN support if that information had been before the UN?'" he said. Little to tell? Mr Kay's report comes as Congress debates President George W Bush's request for $87bn for spending on Iraq and Afghanistan. One element of that budget is $600m to pay for further searches for evidence that Saddam Hussein did possess weapons of mass destruction, according to the New York Times. If the budget is approved, the ISG will boost its staff by 200 to 1,400. According to the leaks from Mr Kay's report, Saddam Hussein sent his generals authorization to use WMDs against advancing US troops. President Bush in turn quoted these commands, referring to "the very weapons the dictator tells the world he does not have". However, Mr Kay's report might imply that such commands were false and deliberately intended to confuse the international community. Release Mr Kay will give separate addresses to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, and details of his remarks are not due to be released officially. "I don't think he's going to have a lot to tell us," said Jay Rockefeller, the senior Democrat on the Senate committee. Committee chairman Pat Roberts, a Republican, said he was increasingly uncertain about Iraq's alleged possession of WMDs. "At one point I'm sure they did. Where they are now and what point they are now, I just don't know." Some officials in the Pentagon are saying there is evidence of secret Iraqi preparations to produce chemical or biological weapons. Mr Kay is expected to report that Saddam Hussein never abandoned his attempts to build WMDs, the Washington Post reports. The paper says Mr Kay will also report that Iraq bought supplies that could have been used to build banned weapons, after UN inspectors left the country in 1998. Jane Harman, the senior Democrat on the House committee, said she would try to force the release of details from Mr Kay's report. "There is a high level of public interest in this question and I'm not sure I understand why everything must be kept confidential," she said.

10-02-2003, 04:53 AM	#2
KRL Entrepreneur Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: USA Posts: 31,429	Yeh sure. Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction. Really? Tell it to these folks. I'm sure they'll all agree with you. __________________ If you would like to develop your domains, you can lease inexpensive foreign labor from the leaders in the field at iWebmasters.com TO LOWER YOUR COSTS AND INCREASE YOUR PRODUCTION! * * * * * * * * * * * * Domains Adult News KRL's Newsletter Biz Tips Just Listed Domains

10-02-2003, 06:28 AM	#37
brand0n been very busy Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: the queen city Posts: 26,983	thanks krl, great way to fuck up a good morning __________________ want to buy this spot for cheap? it is of course for sale. long term deals are always the best bet. brand0n/ at/ a o l dot commies.

10-02-2003, 08:51 AM	#39
directfiesta Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Montreal, Quebec Posts: 29,682	What amazes me is this " he gased his own people" .... 5000 of them. Nothing nice about that, but much less worst than the near 200,000 iranians he did also gas, with the tacit approval of the US ( and Ronald R.)... Who said anything at that time? In fact, who even said anything about the gassed Kurds??? Not the US. 10 years later, you now bring that up as awfull and evidence that he HAS wmd... Sick logic... BTW< I have WMD : Women of Mass Dimension.... __________________ I know that Asspimple is stoopid ... As he says, it is a FACT ! But I can't figure out how he can breathe or type , at the same time ....

10-02-2003, 08:59 AM	#42
Scott McD Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Glasgow, Scotland Posts: 67,795	Damn.... __________________ I Buy My High Quality Traffic Here, You Should Too!

10-02-2003, 04:56 AM	#3
1407 Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Europe Posts: 103	Keep looking and keep wasting your tax dollars

10-02-2003, 05:00 AM	#4
uranidiot So Fucking Banned Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 566	Why people bring up evidence from 15 years ago as something that's true now I'll never understand. I suppose Reagan is still president too, right?

10-02-2003, 05:07 AM	#7
dj pussy Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: google Posts: 1,440	news! Kuwait claims to have foiled attempt to smuggle $60m worth of chemical weapons and biological warheads from Iraq to a European country. Al-Siyassah adds smugglers were under surveillance and arrested ?in due time? and arms will be turned over to an FBI agent.

10-02-2003, 05:23 AM	#15
jas1552 Confirmed User Join Date: May 2002 Location: Land of the free, home of the brave Posts: 1,462	Well, I wonder why WMDs haven't been planted as has been predicted on this board a number of times.

10-02-2003, 05:30 AM	#18
gin Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 672	bush is a fucking idiot. the whole objective of this whole damn war was "to get sadam husane" when they couldn't get him they changed it to "destory weapons of mass dustruction" in a hurry so they could cover it up. now they find out they didn't even have weapons of mass dustruction and ended up killing half of the country. sadam husane is probably long gone, and now he is 500 times more pissed off and is probably going to blow some shit up. didn't they say some shit like the magically found "800 million dollars" inside of a whare house building in iraq? that is the biggest fucking lie ever! no fool in iraq has more then 1 million dollars let alone 800 million dollars laying around. if he did. what has this war accompilshed besides millions of people dieng and billions of dollars spent? it's all a cover up for something.. think about it

10-02-2003, 05:37 AM	#25
uranidiot So Fucking Banned Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 566	The question now is: If the US is now feeling the pinch with war costs and mounting deaths, why don't they hand over political management of the country to the UN? That's what the UN understands and has a lot of experience in. What benefit does the US have in keeping political control of Iraq? Heaven forbid it should be profiteering from the war.

10-02-2003, 05:47 AM	#26
humanaut Registered User Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 53	Saddam HAD weapons in the past.. we all know that is a fact Sometime after 1998 - after the UN inspectors were withdr^H^H^H^H^H^H kickedout of iraq, he destroyed his arsenal of doomsday weapons (or sold them to iranians/other arabs) and engineered this whole september 11 thing to get america to attack and invade, destroying their old alliances with pretty much everyone in the world and killing lots of people in the process. Also making more terrorists, because of all the arab kids without dads. HE'S JUST THAT FUCKING EVIL.

10-02-2003, 05:53 AM	#27
1407 Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Europe Posts: 103	There is no link between Sadam and september 11 even the bush adminitration admids that