Saddam Hussein arrested

thanks fulcrum for that thread let em reemphasize what seekerof wrote.

Originally posted by Seekerof
Well, needless to say, I have argued this over and over, link after link, all of which is still easily found on the internet using keywords as 'Iraq's WMD that remain unaccounted?', 'unaccounted for Iraqi WMD', 'What WMD are still UNACCOUNTED for by Saddam and Iraq?'....the ways and means are many and varied.

Yet many fail to understand the word "unaccounted for" and then when they do, tend to detrail the whole issue by going or changing the subject to other areas that have nothing to do with the fact that Saddam/Iraq still had/has "unaccounted for" WMD.

Though there are varying reports stipulating that Saddam/Iraq had destroyed most, as reported by the UN and UNSCOM.....again....the fact remains that he and Iraq, as eluded to by the UN, UNSCOM, other nations intel services, not just the US's, have outstanding, undocumented, unaccounted for WMD.

I'm sure, despite what they will read here or find anywhere else, people will only believe what they deem themselves to believe........

" UNSCR 687 and related resolutions 707, 715, and 1051 stipulate that Iraq must provide full, final and complete disclosure of all aspects of its nuclear, chemical, biological, and long-range missile weapons programs; allow unconditional inspection access by international monitors; cease any attempt to conceal, move, or destroy any material or equipment related to these programs; and cooperate with UN monitoring of relevant Iraqi facilities and trade activities."

Link:
usinfo.state.gov...

UNSCOM reports vary, as does intel service reports vary, but it is agreed that Saddam and Iraq still have unaccounted for:

* Approxly. "600 metric tons of agents, including VX, mustard gas and sarin, remain unaccounted for."

* Other varied reports give approx. numbers at: "1000 metric tons and 30,000 munitions of VX and Sarin, in addition to 25,000 liters of anthrax and 19,000 of botulinum toxin, remain unaccounted for."

* Approxly. "8,500 liters of anthrax, 20,000 liters of botulinum, 2,200 liters of aflatoxin, and the biological agent ricin. Note on anthrax: An infectious dose of anthrax is about 8,000 spores, or less than one-millionth of a gram in a non immuno-compromised person. Inhalation anthrax historically has been 100 percent fatal within five to seven days, although in recent cases aggressive medical treatment has reduced the fatality rate."

* "UNSCOM discovered a document at Iraqi Air Force headquarters in July 1998 showing that Iraq overstated by at least 6,000 the number of chemical bombs it told the UN it had used during the Iran-Iraq War�bombs that remain are unaccounted for."

* Other varied reports give approx. numbers at: "6,500 "chemical bombs" that Iraq admitted producing but whose whereabouts were unknown and those chemical agent in those bombs at 1,000 tons."

* "Iraq has not accounted for 25,000 rockets and 15,000 artillery shells that in the past were its preferred means for delivering nerve agents, nor has it accounted for about 550 artillery shells filled with mustard agent, unaccounted for."

* Other varied sources give numbers at: "800 unaccounted 155mm artillery shells which may contain mustard gas."


Many will scoff at this or down play its importance by claiming and asking: Was this justification enough to take down Saddam or to invade Iraq? Others will simply 'blow it off'....personally, I don't care. Perception is a matter of individual taste. The damage is done....
"Justification" is a matter of argument and will always remain an argument...the matter that needs to be resolved and noted is that simple fact that the above WMD, still remain "unaccounted for" and no one has a clue where they are......


regards
seekerof

That is for the topic i gave link to.

Also,

I proved him wrong.

Hans Blix tells that there were no WMDs.

Scott Ritter also..

And fact remains: None has been found.



(If you like to discuss this futher, lets do it in the topic to which this belongs? Ok?)

Ritter like seekerof said was bought off. And hans was a pacifist he would claim that there was none jsut to stop the war and make the USA look bad. he is merly a puppet for the UN who had teh proof and refused to help even tho they promised to

and they never found those UNACCOUNTED FOR weapons

hmm i think this is one of the fastest growing topics lol

Originally posted by Quicksilver
and they never found those UNACCOUNTED FOR weapons

UNACCOUNTED stands for missing..

Arent they all missing?

All the supposed WMDs are UNACCOUNTED FOR in other words, missing.



You and Seeker really dont seem to know what the wonder are you talking about..



Btw,

I and most think that they are missing because Iraqis destroyed them long time ago.

please do you really think that saddam would destroy them w/o letting us know if he did his stupidity amazes me

unaccounted for mean teh inspectors dont know where they went. All Saddam had to do is ell us where the y were or provide evidence they were destroyed in accordence the the UN mandate and none of this would have happened

Originally posted by Quicksilver
please do you really think that saddam would destroy them w/o letting us know if he did his stupidity amazes me

He told you (Americans..) many times that he didnt have any, you just chose not to belive him.



Note:

I know that you arent American..

and his word is credible???? and i am american

Originally posted by Quicksilver
and his word is credible???? and i am american

Well,

Bush has lied much more than Saddam..

actually i havent seen anywhere that Saddam would have lied about anything..

well i think bush intentions are good.

Originally posted by Quicksilver
well i think bush intentions are good.

Single goverment world a good thing?

Because that is his goal.

mere specualtion fulcrum

Originally posted by Quicksilver
mere specualtion fulcrum

You are even at this very moment spectating as it is happening, yet you cant see..

Great! Now maybe we can get back to trying to find the real enemies, eh?

you cannot prove that those are his intention. Trust me man i see where you are commin from i slightly believe it to

Good for America good for moral. It was looking like a disturbing pattern for a while. Hitler- no body Osama no body.Saddam-no body. Now that we've got Saddam, I have a question. I read that Saddam Hussein offered to debate Bush before the invasion but Bush refused. Now that the U.S. has defied the U.N. (big whoop) and attacked a sovereign nation on the pretext of an imminent threat to the U.S. ---will Bush have a debate with him now? Where are the WMD? Some might say Bush is above such a debate. Why would that be? Because Saddam is a criminal? So is Admiral Poindexter, but for a pardon before his trial. Bush would make him chief of the total information awareness agency! Spying on you and me.

Originally posted by Quicksilver
2.Jez even at that if they weren't responsible for the gassing of the Kurds there is still 400,00 death unaccounted for that he supposedly enacted. And the economic sanctions are brought on by Saddam not us.

I don't deny that Saddam was a tyrant and a murderer. I just believe that we should view both sides honestly. A couple hundred thousand Iraqis were deported to Iran and Syria. He definitely is responsible for the deaths of thousands more, whom he executed for their opposition to his regime.

What is most disturbing about this is that the US was aware of those atrocities and chose to turn a blind eye to it, in favor of continuing relations with Saddam.

1984 - Rumsfeld returns to Baghdad for meetings with the Iraqi foreign minister on 24 March, the same day that the United Nations (UN) releases a report finding that Iraq is using mustard gas and the nerve agent tabun against Iranian troops.
The US State Department also acknowledges Iraq's actions, releasing a statement on 5 March saying that "available evidence indicates that Iraq has used lethal chemical weapons."
Nevertheless, full diplomatic relations between Iraq and the US are restored in November, allowing the US to provide Iraq with further aid to fight the war.
One former member of the program is quoted as saying the Pentagon "wasn't so horrified by Iraq's use of (poisonous) gas. It was just another way of killing people - whether with a bullet or phosgene, it didn't make any difference."
1987 - In the north, the Iraqi Government launches the so-called Anfal campaign against the Kurd dissidents who have aided the Iranians during the war. It is reported that thousands of Kurds are killed when villages are attacked with poison gas.
Overall, an estimated 4,000 villages and towns are razed and hundreds of thousands of Kurds are "cleansed" from the region by forced deportation. Many Kurds flee across the borders with Turkey and Iran. More than 100,000 Kurdish civilians are reported as killed or "disappeared". By the end of 1989 the Kurdish resistance has been crushed.
Despite being aware of Hussein's use of chemical weapons against civilian populations, the US does nothing to curtail its relations with the Iraqi regime, though the tone of the engagement does being to sour


As for the sanctions placed on Iraq, it was the UN that imposed them on Saddam, and the US that maintained them, in an effort to make him cooperate. The fact of the matter, however, is that the sanctions didn't hurt anyone but the poor civilians of Iraq. Saddam wasn't effected by those sanctions. He just found a loophole and had the oil pumped to Syria, effectively circumventing the sanctions on selling oil on the open market. We already knew that he couldn't care less about the Iraqi people's lives, yet we still chose to impose sanctions that caused hundreds of thousands of people to starve to death! If the same thing was done to us, you'd better believe, most Americans would be blaming it on the country enforcing the sanctions, not on our own government.

2. I like you don't agree with the detaining of the "terrorist" in getmo but like i said to fulcrum i guarantee we are not doing like Saddam did,
So are we better than Saddam, just because He was more openly ruthless then us? We may not be AS cruel as Saddam, but the US should not be at all comparable to Saddam or his regime, even to the slightest degree. We are supposed to exemplify freedom and democracy. We are supposed to be showing them why it is better to live by the principles upon which America was founded. We are claiming that Saddam is a monster and and the epitome of evil, but all the while our own government is slowly and quietly edging it's way along the same path, yet nobody seems to care.

3. with the women in Iraq yes of course they're scared to go out because of Saddam's legacy and grunts and the Muslim culture that cant go out anyway.
I would almost agree with this if it wasn't for the different interviews I have read with Iraqi women that say they feel less safe NOW then they did when Saddam was in power. They said they fear more for their safety and the safety of their children since the US removed the brutal regime which had been so oppressive for so long. Initially, they had faith that things were going to improve, but gradually that faith has changed into doubt, as their lives continue to be threatened. Whether we are to blame or not, is debatable, but it is becoming very clear that the safety of the women of Iraq is not high on the US's priority list.

4.AND the bush thing you are stating is another separate debate that could go on forever. I like him i think his intentions are just.
Why? What has he done to instill within you such faith in his integrity? I'm not asking this sarcastically. I am really curious to know what it is about him you find so worthy of your trust.

5. ...I think the end does justify the means here. Even if there is no wmd and we were wrong then we still did good there that justifies the whole war. and i bet the Iraqis believe that to.
What you have to understand, is that the US government doesn't care about the Iraqis anymore than Saddam did. If they did, the death of 500,000 children from sanctions would not have been considered "acceptable casualties", we would not have ignored Saddam's torture and murder of thousands of Iraqi civilians in order to continue our collaboration with him. We would not have supplied him with the chemicals and weapons that he used to kill and torture dissidents.
Don't ever forget that the only reason humanitarian efforts are even an issue is because, if they weren't, the US government would have to face the wrath of every country and person that was against the war to begin with. The only reason his approval rating is so high, is because people like to believe that we are in Iraq because our Administration cares what happens to the people over there. Unfortunately, there is far more evidence to the contrary.

6. yes i bet they would like to see the USA out of there now that we have Saddam we can get out of there even quicker.
As much as I would like to believe that to be true, I fear that even if we remove most of our troops from Iraq, they will be soon be redeployed to Syria or Iran. The "War on Terror" doesn't stop at Iraq, remember. Wherever there is oil, er, I mean terrorists, we will be there to route them out, destroy them, and bring "freedom" to their people.

7. and sure you can think of us as the lesser of two evils but unlike Saddam we are going to give sovereignty back to the people of Iraq.
Do you really think that they are going to get to choose their own government officials? They will get the same kind of puppet government we have planted in every other country we have "liberated". We can't afford to risk the election of an anti-American President in Iraq after all of the money we have invested into gaining control over the region.

See www.moreorless.au.com...
for a timeline of Saddam's entire life and career. You may find it interesting. I did, at any rate.