Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Iraqi Colonel: WMD Could've Been Launched

  1. #1
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    Post Thanks / Like
    [color=green]Hey, chicken-doves, what's your spin on this story? Oh, and don't bother to consult CNN or MSNBC websites, both convieniently left this little tidbit off. If you don't trust Fox, logon to the London Telegraph website and read it for yourself.[/color]

    [u][b][SIZE=3]Iraqi Colonel: WMD Could've Been Launched in 45 Minutes [/SIZE][/b][/u]

    Foxnews Sunday, December 07, 2003

    [b]Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction[/b] and his army was capable of firing them off in less than 45 minutes, [b]according to statements from an Iraqi colonel[/b].

    [b]Lt. Col. al-Dabbagh told the London Telegraph that cases of WMD warheads were shipped under cover of darkness to front-line units, including his own, near the end of 2002, in a report published in Sunday editions[/b].

    In September of 2002 the British government published a controversial intelligence report on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, claiming WMD could be launched within 45 minutes. Al-Dabbagh said he believed he was the source of the claim, which was widely criticized as being a ploy by British Prime Minister Tony Blair to gain support for military action in Iraq.

    "I am the one responsible for providing this information," al-Dabbagh, 40, told the Telegraph when shown the dossier. "[b]It is 100 percent accurate[/b]."

    "[b]Forget 45 minutes, we could have fired these within half-an-hour[/b]," he was quoted as saying.

    Al-Dabbagh told the paper that the weapons were Iraqi-manufactured and were designed to be launched from hand-held rocket-propelled grenades. Whether the weapons contained biological or chemical agents was not made clear by al-Dabbagh, the report said.

    [b]Iraqi military commanders could use the weapons only on the personal orders of Saddam, al-Dabbagh told the paper, adding: "We were told that when the war came we would only have a short time to use everything we had to defend ourselves, including the secret weapon[/b]."

    So why weren't the weapons launched against the allied forces encroaching on Iraq? Al-Dabbagh said the majority of the Iraqi army did not want to fight for Saddam.

    "The West should thank God that the Iraqi army decided not to fight," he told the paper. "If the army had fought for Saddam Hussein and[b] used these weapons there would have been terrible consequences[/b]."

  2. #2
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    hey that's great so where are these weapons now?

    Weeb i don't know if you thought this through but from the perspective of national security the idea that Bush was Wrong and/or Lying and there were no WMD is actually best case scenario.

    Worst case the feyudeen (or worse) have these weapons and are preparing for their use against our troops or our populace.

    that's what i can't understand... if you guys assume that there are WMD, in the quantities that the White House led us all to believe - then doesn't the fact that no one can find these things trouble you in the least?

    :blink:

  3. #3
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Dec 8 2003, 05:12 PM
    [b] that's what i can't understand... if you guys assume that there are WMD, in the quantities that the White House led us all to believe - then doesn't the fact that no one can find these things trouble you in the least?
    [/b][/quote]
    You're the one that said we never should have fought the war because the administration lied about the danger, lied about non-existant WMDs.

    The fact those things might still be floating around is exactly why we've got to stay and finish this. Iraqi WMDs exist and so do remnants of the regime and other terrorists. Both must be found and eliminated. And it's better to fight there than at home.

    Concerned? Hell, yes. But doing nothing would have insured a much larger, surprise attack -- possibly here in America.

    That's why the two wars IN CONJUNCTION WITH such laws as the Patriot Act is a necessary evil during these troubled times.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    Post Thanks / Like
    Hey Bush, Have you found any of those Iraqi WMD's yet?

    No! :o

    Didn&#39;t think so. <_<

    Boy is 5-ever gonna be pissed at you. Back in March he said that if they weren&#39;t found by the end of the year he was gonna slam you for invading Iraq under false pretenses.

    We&#39;ll soon find out if he&#39;s a hypocrite or not.

  5. #5
    Hall Of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Somewhere
    Posts
    10,488
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by tailgators[/i]@Dec 11 2003, 12:43 PM
    [b] Hey Bush, Have you found any of those Iraqi WMD&#39;s yet?

    No&#33; :o

    Didn&#39;t think so. <_<

    Boy is 5-ever gonna be pissed at you. Back in March he said that if they weren&#39;t found by the end of the year he was gonna slam you for invading Iraq under false pretenses.

    We&#39;ll soon find out if he&#39;s a hypocrite or not. [/b][/quote]
    The war was still entertaining to watch on tv.

  6. #6
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    State Location Here
    Posts
    8,023
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Dec 8 2003, 05:12 PM
    [b]hey that&#39;s great so where are these weapons now?

    Weeb i don&#39;t know if you thought this through but from the perspective of national security the idea that Bush was Wrong and/or Lying and there were no WMD is actually best case scenario.
    [/b][/quote]
    Yeah, Bush cooked it all up himself. The bastard.


    "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
    murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
    particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
    miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America&#39;s response to his
    continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction
    . So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real
    ..."
    - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003


    "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam
    Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for
    the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
    - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

    "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that
    Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weap ons
    stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has
    also
    given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members
    .. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will
    continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare,
    and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
    - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

    "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every
    significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his
    chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has
    refused to do" Rep.
    - Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

    "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively
    to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the
    next five years . We also should remember we have always underestimated
    the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
    - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

    "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority
    to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe
    that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real
    and
    grave threat to our security."
    - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

    "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
    confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
    biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
    build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence
    reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
    - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

    "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing
    weapons of mass destruction."
    - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

    "Iraq&#39;s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to
    deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in
    power."
    - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

    "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
    weapons throughout his country."
    - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

    "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a
    threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the
    mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction
    and the means of delivering them."
    - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

    "There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons
    programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
    continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam
    continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a
    licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten
    the United
    States and our allies."
    - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others,
    December 5, 2001

    "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
    destruction and palaces for his cronies."
    - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

    "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."
    - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

    "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.
    Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate,
    air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to
    the threat posed by Iraq&#39;s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction
    programs."
    - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John
    Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

    "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times
    since 1983." S
    - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

    "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal
    here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear,
    chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest
    security
    threat we face."
    - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

    "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We
    want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq&#39;s weapons of mass
    destruction program."
    - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

    "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
    develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That
    is our bottom line."
    - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

  7. #7
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    shakin you have missed my point

    war justification aside -

    all im saying is if there are these WMD and we can&#39;t find them its a huge security problem not just for the troops but for the entire American population.

    at least with Saddam in power you knew where they were. Now who has em?

    its in our best interests to HOPE there are no WMD and the admin was wrong about the whole thing - the alternative could get very ugly.

  8. #8
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Dec 11 2003, 12:01 PM
    [b]

    at least with Saddam in power you knew where they were. Now who has em?

    [/b][/quote]
    Why is this statement true?

  9. #9
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    why is it false?

    all this is assuming there were WMD in the first place mind you.

  10. #10
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    State Location Here
    Posts
    8,023
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Dec 11 2003, 01:01 PM
    [b] shakin you have missed my point

    war justification aside -

    all im saying is if there are these WMD and we can&#39;t find them its a huge security problem not just for the troops but for the entire American population.

    at least with Saddam in power you knew where they were. Now who has em?

    its in our best interests to HOPE there are no WMD and the admin was wrong about the whole thing - the alternative could get very ugly. [/b][/quote]
    I didn&#39;t miss your point. I was just calling you out on the other not-so-subtle insidious "point" you were trying to make: that the only two scenarios are that Bush (and Bush alone) was A: Wrong; B: Lying.

    Repetitively working crap like that into your statements, ad nauseum, is straight from the lib textbook -- repeat something as a mantra enough times and it becomes "real."

  11. #11
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    State Location Here
    Posts
    8,023
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Dec 11 2003, 01:33 PM
    [b] all this is assuming there were WMD in the first place mind you. [/b][/quote]
    Which is precisely the point of my post. Check out the names and statements of all those on the left who clearly (and in many cases vociferously) held the same assumption.

    You are working from the textbook bit.

  12. #12
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    shakin words are just words. Until we actually find the WMD i&#39;m under the assumption they never existed. If BUSH/WAR supporters are under the assumption they do exist then the fact that we can&#39;t find them should be scary to you - yet somehow its not?

    as for all the people who you quoted - bottom line aside from the last 4 who were in a presidental admin (or were the president) none of the other people have access to that high level of Intel. They were going by what others (i.e. Bush II) told them was true. Every single member of congress, regardless of party who voted for the war powers act gets a free pass - why? cause they were given false intelligence and lack the resources to question the intel they receive.

    The fact that this is even a debate should be troubling - there should be no DEBATE when it comes to war. Either people support it wholeheartedly or its not worth fighting. No one needed to sell WWII to the American People. It just made sense. This war was sold relentlessly and still doesn&#39;t make any sense at all.

    What are we trying to accomplish? How will we accomplish it? When will we know that its been accomplished? None of these questions have been answered satisfactorily.

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by shakin318[/i]@Dec 11 2003, 02:12 PM
    [b] Which is precisely the point of my post. Check out the names and statements of all those on the left who clearly (and in many cases vociferously) held the same assumption.

    [/b][/quote]
    In spite of what everyone may have said before the war only George W. Bush decided it was a good idea to invade and occupy Iraq. Thus sinking the United States into a quagmire.

    The Bush administration is responsible for our current mess, no one else.

  14. #14
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by tailgators[/i]@Dec 11 2003, 02:40 PM
    [b] In spite of what everyone may have said before the war only George W. Bush decided it was a good idea to invade and occupy Iraq. Thus sinking the United States in a quagmire.

    The Bush administration is responsible for our current mess, no one else. [/b][/quote]
    Quagmire to liberals. And Shakins post proved those very same liberals dared President Bush to do something about Saddam. And when he did, they and their little french maidens opposed it.

    And we all know what an accurate picture the liberals and the media paint of anything done or proposed by a Republican.

    More cops die every day right here at home than soldiers in the ME and what do liberals propose: no death penalty, reduced jail sentences, felons rights, more comfortable prisons, voting rights for convicted felons, etc.

    Way more innocent American civilians are slaughtered by the very same criminals liberals rush to protect.

    Our criminal justice system has become more of a quamire than Iraq thanks to you guys.

  15. #15
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Dec 11 2003, 01:27 PM
    [b]
    No one needed to sell WWII to the American People. It just made sense. [/b][/quote]
    Wrong&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us