About Those Missing WMDs - an interview with an former UNSCOM Inspector and MI officer

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 NEXT

Bob RE:About Those Missing WMDs - an interview with an former UNSCOM Inspector and MI officer 11/16/2005 10:37:50 PM

No way. Let me put my fingers in my ears and sing a happy song about how we went to war based solely on the testimony of a single alcoholic Iraqi ex-patriate codenamed CURVEBALL.

Quote Reply

swhitebull RE:About Those Missing WMDs - More Anecdoctal Evidence They're IN Syria 1/26/2006 7:44:32 AM

Well, more is coming out. I cuaght this interview last night on Fox News with this ex-Iraqi air Force general, now this story appears in THE NY Sun: link swhitebull

Quote Reply

bruno88 RE:About Those Missing WMDs - an interview with an former UNSCOM Inspector and MI officer 1/27/2006 8:52:00 AM

This Frontpagemag article is such a joke. Tierney has based his story on non-sequiturs and half-baked conclusions most of which can easily be explained by alternative hypotheses. He describes a considerable level of paranoia by the Iraqis, and describes their unwillingness to simply kowtow in debasement and allow UNSCOM to do whatever they wanted. I can believe this, since it is a fact that America was using UNSCOM to spy on Iraq. It is hardly as if NBC programmes were the only explanation for a high level of secrecy. It is hardly as if Iraq was obliged to reveal every conventional weapons programme, either. For example, the Iraqis were working on a multiple barrel missile launcher that they could quite conceivably want to withhold from US scrutiny. But nooo, according to Tierney, if the Iraqis were hiding something, it HAD to be NBC weaponry or facilities. By the same reasoning, if US guards obstruct my entry to Roswell AFB, it HAS to be because they don?t want me to see the aliens. This sort of logic is ludicrous. Take this example of his reasoning, which is repeated throughout the article: [Tierney] ?One of our vehicles took an elevated position where they could look inside the installation and see the Iraqis loading specialized containers on to trucks that matched the source description for the biological weapons containers.? There are several assumptions here, key amongst which are: (1) The assumption that the ?source description for the biological weapons containers? is correct. (2) The assumption that the ?source description? does in fact describe weapons containers. We all remember the famous ?mobile weapons labs? that turned out to be British supplied weather balloon filling stations, right? (2) The assumption that these ?weapons containers? were in fact filled with biological weapons, and not some other cargo. Does this mean every time Tierney sees a container labeled ?sugar? he is 100% certain that it?s both full, and that there is sugar in there? Very nice speculation, but without the actual goods, you have nothing. There is much smoke, but mostly from the spinning wheels under the truck of ?dubious assumptions equate proof? that Tierney is trying to peddle. More of the ridiculous speculation that the author wants to push as proof of a nuclear device: [Tierney] ?During the Presidential Site inspections in Spring of 1998, inspectors found an under-mountain storage area at Jabal Makhul. When the inspectors arrived, it was filled with drums of water. The Iraqis claimed that they used the storage area to store rainwater. [?]With its under-mountain bunker, isolation, and central location, it is the perfect place to store a high-value asset like a nuclear weapon. ? Ah, he found a bunker full of rainwater, that in HIS OPINION should rather be used to store a nuclear bomb. Ergo, it must have had a nuclear bomb in it. Is this seriously the level of debate that remains on the issue of Iraqi NBC programs? Linked to this is: ?A London Sunday Times article in 2001 by Gwynne Roberts quoted an Iraqi defector as stating Iraq had nuclear weapons in a heavily guarded installation in the Hamrin mountains.? Very interesting. Except, of course, that the ?defectors? that were pimped off on the MSM were either a bunch of liars-for-hire (thinking Chalabi?s gang here), drunks or people who had had their confessions beaten out of them. Ah, yes, rock solid evidence. I read that article, btw. It stated that Iraq had actually performed an underground detonation of a nuclear device. Hmm. Iraq detonates a nuclear bomb and tells nobody, nor does anybody notice. Nor has the supposed site been investigated since. Yup, these are the sources that Tierney / Glazov is quoting. No wonder Frontpagemag is such a rag. Aren?t you embarrassed at repeating this stuff? He talks about General Hussein Kamal as providing some sort of evidence of secret Iraqi weapons production. Well, *I* happen to have the transcripts of the IAEA interview with Kamal. The General did indeed confirm that Iraq had numerous weapons programmes in place *prior* to 1991. It is quite clear that after 1991, and after the inspections regimen, nothing remained of these except theoretical work and blueprints. In Kamal?s own words: Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) General Hussein Kamal UNSCOM/IAEA Briefing - UNSCOM/IAEA SENSITIVE "In the evening of 22 August 1995, the Executive Chairman of the Special Commission met with General Hussein Kamal in Amman. [?] Smidovich - were weapons and agents destroyed? General Hussein Kamal - nothing remained. Smidovich - was it before or after inspections started? General Hussein Kamal - after visits of inspection teams. You have important role in Iraq with this. You should not underestimate yourself. You are very effective in Iraq. There was an engine for long range missiles. I didn't want to get involved. It was a lost battle and they chose to stop from using this. Smidovich - we could not find any traces of destruction. General Hussein Kamal - yes, it was done before you came in. The place where they buried them was found by you.?//end excerpt I would seriously suggest to any person who wants to hear from a genuine Iraqi nuclear physicist to take a look at this site here: link and see for themselves what the truth about Iraqi nuclear capabilities was. Tierney expects us to believe, three years after the invasion, that Iraqi scientists are still ?scared? and are withholding the ?truth?. Despite the fact that the US is quite able to make a millionaire out of any Iraqi scientist who could produce a ?smoking gun? as well as transplant his entire family to the States for protection if need be. Uh, yeah, right. Faeries exist, but you don?t see them because they are scared of us. Just wait, one day they will overcome their fear and there will be leprechauns dancing across our front lawns. You?ll see. Let?s have another example of Tierney?s wonderful logic: [Tierney:] "In Iraq?s case, the lakes and rivers were the toilet, and Syria was the back door. Even though there was imagery showing an inordinate amount of traffic into Syria prior to the inspections, and there were other indicators of government control of commercial trucking that could be used to ship the weapons to Syria, from the ICs point of view, if there is no positive evidence that the movement occurred, it never happened." So, according to Tierney, PROOF is redundant. If Iraq can?t be proven not to have WMD, then it MUST have them. It Iraq COULD have shipped the weapons to Syria, then it MUST have done so. And THIS is the sort of man who works in the US intelligence service? I can find more intelligent creatures at my local zoo. Let?s wrap up this dissection with a sober exercise in logic. IF Saddam had indeed had these nuclear / chemical weapons, as this article claims, then why did he not use them? Was he saving them for a rainy day? It doesn?t get much rainier than if the USA is sending its army across your borders. What, was he scared that the US was going to put him on trial and hang him? Surprise ? that is what happened anyway. Logically, he had nothing to lose by using them, yet he did not. This from a man who dedicated his entire existence to his own survival? ERGO: he did not have them. Simple, right? Apparently not enough for Tierney and Glazov.

Quote Reply

tigertony RE:About Those Missing WMDs/bruno88 1/27/2006 9:21:32 AM

Hey pal who cares if Saddam had WMD???. What matters was his continued defiance of International Laws and Terms of Surrender from a war he started and we finished!!!. Why dont you count up the number of times he violated "No Fly Zones"???,then count up the number of times he locked radar or attempted to fire on our aircraft???,then count up the number of mass graves we found after removing him and his Baathist thugs???. Now since when does someone start a war and then be allowed to violate the terms of surrender??? Well the last person i remember getting away with that was "Adolf Hitler" and "What happened next???". The USA had every right to invade and remove Saddam,and were where you when the USA tried for 8 months to make the UN listen to many other reasons to attack and remove Saddam???. And i wonder why the UN refused to listen or except any excuse except WMD??? Answer: UN corruption and Oil For Food!!! Have A Nice Day!!! tigertony

Quote Reply

PlatypusMaximus RE:About Those Missing WMDs - an interview with an former UNSCOM Inspector and MI officer 1/28/2006 1:03:38 AM

So, did Saddam use them all up, or did they never exist? What do you think happened to the very last bit of his capability? Was there a specific day where he went from reigning WMD champ to I have no idea what you're talking about? You don't know what those leperchauns, fairies, aliens and talking zoo animals are up to.

Quote Reply

Pseudonym RE:About Those Missing WMDs - an interview with an former UNSCOM Inspector and MI officer 1/28/2006 4:01:32 AM

Okay Bruno says we didn't find them, they don't exist. I say Saddam used them, if we didn't find them, though we have been finding chem shells, then they were moved, probably to Syria. Since the fact he had them is not in doubt, the fact he continued to obstruct inspections instead of getting the Sanctions dropped once in compliance is not in doubt, the whole there are none arguement fails any form of logic you can try to apply.

Quote Reply

Herodotus RE:About Those Missing WMDs/bruno88 1/28/2006 11:10:05 PM

The UN dictated the terms of surrender, and the Security Council is the only arbiter on international law; and thus the UN is the only organization that could have authorized the use of force, which of course it did not. The No-fly zones were not a part of any cease-fire agreement; nor sanctioned by the Security Council...only Britain and the US maintained the no-fly zones and violating Iraqi airspace and soverignity. If Russia and China imposed restrictions on US airspace; and flew sorties in Idaho and Texas, would the US not be justified in firing back? Yeah and that concerns American national interests how??? < Now since when does someone start a war and then be allowed to violate the terms of surrender??? Well the last person i remember getting away with that was "Adolf Hitler" and "What happened next???". > I don't know, North Korea violates the cease-fire all the time (USS Pueblo); The Arabic countries violated the terms of surrender in the 1973 War and subsquent sponsoring of terrorism. Let's not go down the slippery slope that is Munich once again; every two-bit dictator cannot be compared to Nazi Germany; I have written about this before,,, Nazi Germany's GDP, armed forces, population size, industrial base, and imperial ambitions were all expotentially greater than Iraq's. It may have but not for the WMD reason.

Quote Reply

Herodotus RE:About Those Missing WMDs - an interview with an former UNSCOM Inspector and MI officer 1/28/2006 11:18:10 PM

"Was there a specific day where he went from reigning WMD champ to I have no idea what you're talking about? You don't know what those leperchauns, fairies, aliens and talking zoo animals are up to. " Yes it was after the 1991 Gulf War; Saddam did have WMD but during the 1980s...and after he almost lost the whole ball of wax in 1991 he felt it was too dangerous to keep WMD; a unilateral disarmement took place, that coupled with the inspections regime elimnated Iraq's WMD threat. What proof do you have that Iraq's WMD program exists??? SOme Isralei general from an intelligence service that couldn't predict a Hamas victory says so??? Some Iraqi general who wants to make a quick buck on a book states they flew the WMD to Syria??? The allegations cannot be proven false becaue Syria already has its own WMD program; and unless the Syrians stamped theirs with Asad's seal, any WMD found in that country will be assumed to be Iraq's.

Quote Reply

Bob RE:About Those Missing WMDs - an interview with an former UNSCOM Inspector and MI officer 1/29/2006 5:03:42 AM

>> Some Iraqi general who wants to make a quick buck on a book states they flew the WMD to Syria??? << Hero, please, even you know you have cited sources whose intentions were always either to make capital, political or monetary! >> The allegations cannot be proven false becaue Syria already has its own WMD program; and unless the Syrians stamped theirs with Asad's seal, any WMD found in that country will be assumed to be Iraq's. << Sir, the U.K and U.S dismantled the entire chemical and biological arsenal and infrastructure of Libya. Can you prove true that it was all indigenous? Can you prove false that it was really an arsenal for Iraq or Egypt? Can you prove that it all came from A.Q Khan? China? North Korea? No! We never have proof of anything, we're civilians! All we have is evidence. Does the evidence we have strongly point to Saddam Hussein's Iraq having no Weapons of Mass Destruction after the year 1991??? No!

Quote Reply

anuts RE:About Those Missing WMDs - an interview with an former UNSCOM Inspector and MI officer 1/29/2006 5:32:43 AM

OBL does not exist. For some, OBL never existed. My proof, you ask? Well, we haven't found him yet. Case closed.

Quote Reply

anuts RE:About Those Missing WMDs/bruno88 1/29/2006 5:36:26 AM

"The UN dictated the terms of surrender, and the Security Council is the only arbiter on international law; and thus the UN is the only organization that could have authorized the use of force, which of course it did not." Were those UN planes and UN pilots targeted and in some cases even fired upon in no-fly zones?

Quote Reply

PlatypusMaximus RE:About Those Missing WMDs - an interview with an former UNSCOM Inspector and MI officer 1/29/2006 10:55:14 AM

"What proof do you have that Iraq's WMD program exists???" My proof is when we found mustard gas and Sarin, and you claimed we really needed to find stockpiles.

Quote Reply

PlatypusMaximus RE:About Those Missing WMDs - an interview with an former UNSCOM Inspector and MI officer 1/29/2006 10:56:15 AM

this was 12 years later....in Iraq.....

Quote Reply

sentinel28a RE:About Those Missing WMDs/bruno88 1/30/2006 1:18:28 AM

Again, I find us crossing swords, Hero. "The UN dictated the terms of surrender, and the Security Council is the only arbiter on international law; and thus the UN is the only organization that could have authorized the use of force, which of course it did not." Since when is the Security Council the only arbiter of international law, and the UN the only authority to approve force? The UN Charter recognizes nations' ability to act in self-defense. If the Security Council is the *only* arbiter of international law, that means all maritime laws, all trade laws, and all international criminal trials are null and void. You grant the UN far more power than they have, and infinitely more than they deserve. "The No-fly zones were not a part of any cease-fire agreement; nor sanctioned by the Security Council...only Britain and the US maintained the no-fly zones and violating Iraqi airspace and soverignity. If Russia and China imposed restrictions on US airspace; and flew sorties in Idaho and Texas, would the US not be justified in firing back?" Sure. There's only two problems. Russia and China have yet to defeat us in a war (the Iraqis were) and there's no ethnic minorities in Idaho or Texas that the US is bent on exterminating. Since you're a rational human being, Herodotus, I assume you don't get a kick out of Iraqi gunships massacring Kurds and Shi'a. Which brings up the next topic: no-fly zones were part of the ceasefire agreement hammered out by Schwartzkopf in March 1991 as part of the armistice. He foolishly allowed helicopters to be exempt from those zones, leading to the aforementioned use of gunships for genocide. < Now since when does someone start a war and then be allowed to violate the terms of surrender??? Well the last person i remember getting away with that was "Adolf Hitler" and "What happened next???". > "I don't know, North Korea violates the cease-fire all the time (USS Pueblo); The Arabic countries violated the terms of surrender in the 1973 War and subsquent sponsoring of terrorism." Which makes a pretty good reason for flattening North Korea, except that we were sort of involved in Vietnam at the time (and LBJ was scared out of his mind that attacking North Korea might just offend those Chinese folks). Also, the Arabs have violated the 1973 ceasefire agreements (with the exception of Egypt), and usually got their ass handed to them by Israel as a result. "Let's not go down the slippery slope that is Munich once again; every two-bit dictator cannot be compared to Nazi Germany; I have written about this before,,, Nazi Germany's GDP, armed forces, population size, industrial base, and imperial ambitions were all expotentially greater than Iraq's." And you're going to continue hearing this until you get it. Yes, the Third Reich was different from Iraq and had far more ambitions, economic power, and military strength than Saddam, but that was because Europe *allowed* Hitler to do so. Had France come down like a ton of bricks on Hitler when he remilitarized the Rhineland, annexed Austria, or threatened Czechslovakia, probably the Nazis would have been thrown out of office by the Wehrmacht. Hitler realized this, which was why he was terrified that France would act (by his own admission). Since France and the UK did nothing, Hitler was free to do what he wished. And since they did nothing, France paid the ultimate price in 1940. The point isn't comparing GDP and ability. The point is that you don't wait for some homicidal maniac to get enough power to where he becomes this world-spanning horrible threat. You strangle the SOB in his crib, so to speak. Though I suppose we could've let Saddam merely murder thousands of his own countrymen. They're not European, so that's okay? You know better than that. If you don't, you should. Incidentally, I'm not entirely ready to believe this guy on Syria having Iraqi WMDs. It's certainly plausible--the chemicals AQ wanted to use on Amman had to come from somewhere--but until I hear more evidence from just this man, I have to say it's just hearsay until then. I would say "let's hear from the CIA first," but they've been dropping the ball as of late; I'm waiting to hear from the Mossad.

Quote Reply

Herodotus RE:About Those Missing WMDs/bruno88 1/30/2006 5:51:41 AM

"Since when is the Security Council the only arbiter of international law, and the UN the only authority to approve force? The UN Charter recognizes nations' ability to act in self-defense. If the Security Council is the *only* arbiter of international law, that means all maritime laws, all trade laws, and all international criminal trials are null and void. You grant the UN far more power than they have, and infinitely more than they deserve." Since the agreements between Iraq and the UN after the 1991 war fall under the auspices of the Security COuncil; they are the only legitimate body to approve force in this instance....you give too much credance to "Chapter VII" resolutions. CHapter VII is not an automatic trigger for war; the Security COuncil still determines what course of action, if any, should be taken. Article 51 states:"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security. " link It is specific to an armed attack, not a preceived attack, and no the no-fly zones don't count because they were unilaterally imposed by the US Britain and France on Iraq. There was nothing stated in any ceasefire about "no-fly zones". Secondly UNSCR 688 which the US used to justify the "no-fly zones" is not even sanctioned by Chapter VII, thus how does the US justify the use of force in its invasion of Iraq? "There's only two problems. Russia and China have yet to defeat us in a war (the Iraqis were) and there's no ethnic minorities in Idaho or Texas that the US is bent on exterminating. Since you're a rational human being, Herodotus, I assume you don't get a kick out of Iraqi gunships massacring Kurds and Shi'a." Yes we were never defeated in a war with Iraq or Russia or CHina, but we also did not dictate the terms of surrender to the Iraqis; the UN did in the form of Resolutions. "The president gave the CINC only 48 hours to prepare for the meeting. Powell directed Schwarzkopf to prepare "terms of reference" for the meeting. The CINC spent an hour dictating the terms, focusing exclusively on immediate military issues. He sought immediate release of all coalition prisoners of war; exchange of information on people missing in action; return of the remains of people killed in action; and exchange of information on mines and booby traps, as well as on any storage sites the enemy had established for weapons of mass destruction in th e Kuwait theater of operations (KTO). He also sought to establish a demarcation line to physically separate the coalition and Iraqi armies. He transmitted the draft document to Washington, D.C., where the JCS and State Department reviewed and approved it. The terms of reference were thereafter sent to Iraq via Moscow. [11] The draft terms of reference were modified only slightly in Washington. For example, for each occurrence of the CINC's clause "the coalition will negotiate," the State Department had substituted the clause "the coalition will discuss," reflecting its position that only the State Department negotiated for the United States of America. According to State, the military lacked such authority. [12]" link So not even the US government can agree if the "cease-fire" was formal or not. At any rate nothing in the cease-fie says anything about the Kurds or no-fly zones. Yes it is unfortunate that the Kurds and Shiites were killed in large numbers after they rebelled, instigated by President Bush. The key point here; and i have read Laurie Mlyroie's article on Iraqi helicopters is that they were used inside Iraq, i.e. soverign territory. Right after the Gulf War; that great democratic leader the Emir of Kuwait, started to repress anyone who was suspected of working for the Iraqis during the occupation and forcefully removed 400,000 people (mostly Palestinians), but this gets short-shrift because it was inside Kuwait, and oh yeah we won the war so we can do whatever we want to Iraq. Yes you are right about Nazi Germany; but my point is that we have to take things into context. Saddam did try a "land grab" and he was stopped by who...Iran. Saddam and Iraq were always boxed in and checked by Iranian power; (the two countries did not get along even before Saddam or the Baathists came to power), so your analogy is faulty. Iran is no France and did not allow Iraq to have at the Shaat al-Arab waterway; and in fact Iran became the aggressor in this dispute. "Though I suppose we could've let Saddam merely murder thousands of his own countrymen. They're not European, so that's okay? You know better than that. If you don't, you should." So why don't you criticize the Bush adminstration for not stopping the genocide in Darfur; or the Clinton adminstration for allowing Bosnia and Rwanda to happen? Why don't you demand the extradition of al-Turabi for war crimes or sponsoring terrorism, or how about Pinochet? Because it is about soverignity...this is the key. Saddam murdered thousands of his OWN countrymen. Yes it is terrible but that is the way life is sometimes. I am rational and I am a realist, and so I know that the US cannot intervene in every civil war or genocide so why chose Iraq if it was for the purpose of saving the Kurds and Shiites? The 2003 war did not stop a humanitarian crisis, there was no genocide, not since 1987 has there been genocide in Iraq, or if you want to make the argument that suppressing rebellion is genocide, 1991 was the last time. Even still these were not the arguments made for war in the lead-up to the invasion. The argument for war centered around the presumption that Saddam Hussein was a threat because he held WMD weapons, and would use them to destabilize the Middle East or to cement his goal to be a regional hegemon. The absence of these weapons and of these ambitions undercuts the rational, realist arguement that the war was necessary.

Quote Reply

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 NEXT

	News As History - October 15, 2008
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us