One: an imminent threat to the security of the US from Iraq in regard to WMDs.
I don't doubt for a second that Saddam would have made WMD's readily available to terrorists.
Two: The failure (he claims) of multilateral security (UN) to deal with that threat.
Are you telling me the UN was successful? LOL! Saddam dicked around with the UN for 12 years. In my world, that's unsuccessful.
Three: Iraq (he claims) was one of those nations who aided and abetted the terrorist attacks on 9/11.
I have no reason to believe that he didn't, or wouldn't. He aided and abetted Palestinain terrorists.
So any reason to go to war is ok with you? If so, then you have embraced international anarchy, the worldview of Hitler. That isn't your worldview, is it?
Your words, not mine.
I haven't seen a direct quote from Clinton on that.
Then you haven't been paying attention.
I refer you to the statement I made about Bush's official statement that the US went to war against Iraq because of it's alleged ties to 9/11.
I refer you to my above statements.
Maybe you have a different name for a hegemonic power that seeks to suspend international law and dominate the world
LOL! When can we expect the UN to occupy us, since we're such war criminals and all?
for the sake of material gain.
Material gain my ass.
You lost all credibility there. There's no basis in fact to suggest such a thing.
It's costing us a fortune to be in Iraq, and we get very little oil from all of the Middle East, much less from Iraq.
We were authorized to do what we did. The U.N. didn't want to do what they said they authorized and would rather keep Saddam on double secret probation until he did what they wanted him to do.
As the date approaches for likely Congressional action on an Iraq resolution, Democrats have begun sounding the alarms of dissent. Hinting at a "Wag the Dog" scenario, they have questioned whether Iraq truly poses a clear and present danger to the United States and implied that the Bush Administration may only be acting with an eye toward November. Speaking on the floor last week, Senator Byrd appears to have gotten this latest ball rolling:
"What Congress needs is solid evidence. What we need are answers. Does Saddam Hussein pose an imminent threat to the United States? Should the United States act alone as this administration has been threatening to do? Should Congress grant the President authority to launch a preemptive attack on Iraq?" [floor statement, 9/20/02]
Al Gore followed suit on Monday, albeit in much stronger terms, expressing concern that "[the President] is demanding in this high political season that Congress speedily affirm that he has the necessary authority to proceed immediately against Iraq." Gore went on to add, "no international law can prevent the United States from taking actions to protect its vital interests, when it is manifestly clear that there is a choice to be made between law and survival. I believe, however, that such choice is not presented in the case of Iraq" [speech, 9/23/02].
Few would disagree that legitimate questions remain to be considered regarding our policy toward Iraq, among them such issues as the scope of the authority given the President to act and the likely long-term U.S. investment in a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq. However, questions over the evil nature of the regime and whether or not it poses a threat to our interests seem already to have been addressed, as the following statements attest.
These statements - by leading Democrat Senators - spell out a strong case against Iraq, and they have another thing in common - all were made in 1998. Yet, if the threat was real then, it only stands to reason that it has grown over the last four years, a fact supported by the testimony of Iraqi defectors as well as recent intelligence reports as to the chemical, biological and nuclear weapons capabilities of Baghdad.
Senator Daschle:
"Iraq's actions pose a serious and continued threat to international peace and security. It is a threat we must address. Saddam is a proven aggressor who has time and again turned his wrath on his neighbors and on his own people. Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people. . . . The United States continues to exhaust all diplomatic efforts to reverse the Iraqi threat. But absent immediate Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687, the security threat doesn't simply persist - it worsens. Saddam Hussein must understand that the United States has the resolve to reverse that threat by force, if force is required. And, I must say, it has the will" [Congressional Record, 2/12/98].
Senator Biden:
"An asymmetric capability of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons gives an otherwise weak country the power to intimidate and blackmail. We risk sending a dangerous signal to other would-be proliferators if we do not respond decisively to Iraq's transgressions. Conversely, a firm response would enhance deterrence and go a long way toward protecting our citizens from the pernicious threat of proliferation. . . . Fateful decisions will be made in the days and weeks ahead. At issue is nothing less than the fundamental question of whether or not we can keep the most lethal weapons known to mankind out of the hands of an unreconstructed tyrant and aggressor who is in the same league as the most brutal dictators of this century" [Congressional Record, 2/12/98].
Senator Lieberman:
"Today, the threat may not be as clear to other nations of the world, but its consequences are even more devastating potentially than the real threat, than the realized pain of the invasion of Kuwait in 1990, because the damage that can be inflicted by Saddam Hussein and Iraq, under his leadership, with weapons of mass destruction is incalculable; it is enormous. . . . Mr. President, if this were a domestic situation, a political situation, and we were talking about criminal law in this country, we have something in our law called 'three strikes and you are out,' three crimes and you get locked up for good because we have given up on you. I think Saddam Hussein has had more than three strikes in the international, diplomatic, strategic and military community. So I have grave doubts that a diplomatic solution is possible here. . . . What I and some of the Members of the Senate hope for is a longer-term policy based on the probability that an acceptable diplomatic solution is not possible, which acknowledges as the central goal the changing of the regime in Iraq to bring to power a regime with which we and the rest of the world can have trustworthy relationships" [Congressional Record, 2/12/98].
Senator Levin:
"Mr. President, this crisis is due entirely to the actions of Saddam Hussein. He alone is responsible. We all wish that diplomacy will cause him to back down but history does not give me cause for optimism that Saddam Hussein will finally get it. . . . Mr. President, Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction programs and the means to deliver them are a menace to international peace and security. They pose a threat to Iraq's neighbors, to U.S. forces in the Gulf region, to the world's energy supplies, and to the integrity and credibility of the United Nations Security Council. . . . Mr. President, the use of military force is a measure of last resort. The best choice of avoiding it will be if Saddam Hussein understands he has no choice except to open up to UNSCOM inspections and destroy his weapons of mass destruction. The use of military force may not result in that desired result but it will serve to degrade Saddam Hussein's ability to develop weapons of mass destruction and to threaten international peace and security. Although not as useful as inspection and destruction, it is still a worthy goal" [Congressional Record, 2/12/98].
Senator Kerry:
"Mr. President, we have every reason to believe that Saddam Hussein will continue to do everything in his power to further develop weapons of mass destruction and the ability to deliver those weapons, and that he will use those weapons without concern or pangs of conscience if ever and whenever his own calculations persuade him it is in his interests to do so. . . . I have spoken before this chamber on several occasions to state my belief that the United States must take every feasible step to lead the world to remove this unacceptable threat. He must be deprived of the ability to injure his own citizens without regard to internationally-recognized standards of behavior and law. He must be deprived of his ability to invade neighboring nations. He must be deprived of his ability to visit destruction on other nations in the Middle East region or beyond. If he does not live up fully to the new commitments that U.N. Secretary-General Annan recently obtained in order to end the weapons inspection standoff - and I will say clearly that I cannot conceive that he will not violate those commitments at some point - we must act decisively to end the threats that Saddam Hussein poses." [Congressional Record, 3/13/98.]
In fairness, a few of these Senators have continued to recognize this increased threat and maintained a certain level of consistency on the subject. Unfortunately, others have not.
Consider the following remarks by a key Democrat: "There should be no doubt, Saddam's ability to produce and deliver weapons of mass destruction poses a grave threat to the peace of that region and the security of the world. . .Saddam should never doubt the will of the American people, their legislators, their military, or their commander-in-chief to protect our interests, defend our security, and ensure the well-being of our fellow citizens and that of our friends and allies around the world. He should know that when it comes to protecting our vital national interests, Americans will stand as one. We will speak as one. And whenever, necessary, we will act as one."
Of course, these were the comments of Vice President Al Gore in February 1998,not those of presidential aspirant Al Gore in September 2002. And yet, they claim that Republicans are the ones politicizing the case against Iraq?
From Hillary's (the ex-co-president) speech on the senate floor discussing the use of force against Saddam...
...In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad.
In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.
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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.
Now this much is undisputed. The open questions are: what should we do about it? How, when, and with whom?...
While its repression of the Iraqi people continues, the Iraqi regime still is far from complying with its obligations under United Nations Security Council resolutions.
It has not fully complied with a single resolution.
It has not fully declared and destroyed its WMD programs. It has not ceased concealment of its WMD. It has not responded fully to questions from UNSCOM and the IAEA. (UNSCRs 687, 707, 715, 1051)
It has not returned Kuwaiti and Third Country POWs and Missing Persons (UNSCRs 686 and 687). 605 Kuwaiti POW/MIAs and 34 Saudis remain unaccounted for.
It has not returned all stolen Kuwaiti property (UNSCR 686). In fact, some is still deployed with Iraqi military units
It has not stopped repressing its civilian population (UNSCR 688).
Iraq under Saddam Hussein remains dangerous, unreconstructed, and defiant. It has not disarmed. It has never apologized or expressed regret for the invasion of Kuwait. It continues to repress its people.
This is a dangerous regime that threatens its neighbors, has a long history of aggression, has ambitions to dominate the Gulf by force, and retains the capability to do so.
Saddam's record over the past 10 years, however, demonstrates that he will never comply with UN resolutions and that he will continue to repress his own people and threaten his neighbors. That is why we believe that the only way to address the security needs of the international community and the needs of the people of Iraq is through a new government in Baghdad, one that is committed to living in peace with its neighbors and respecting the rights of its citizens. Iraq, the region, and the world would be better off with a new government in Iraq...
...In a post-Saddam Iraq, the United States will take the lead to foster economic development, restore Iraqi civil society, rebuild the middle class, and restore Iraq's health and education sectors.
The satellite photograph shows a new headquarters complex that Saddam Hussein has built for the Mujahedin-e-Khalq. The complex is located in Falluja, approximately 40 kilometers west of Baghdad. Construction was begun in late 1998 and is still going on. The site covers approximately 6.2 square kilometers and includes lakes, farms, barracks, administrative buildings and other facilities. The facility can accommodate between 3,000 and 5,000 MEK members. The inset shows the MEK's headquarters complex, which is used to coordinate the activities of the organization throughout Iraq and to plan attacks against targets in Iran and elsewhere.
Saddam Hussein spends millions in funds that he controls to support terrorism and threaten his neighbors. Not to help the people of Iraq.
Finally, there is also a terrible irony in all this. The revenues Saddam Hussein used to pay for this new headquarters complex for the Mujahedin-e-Khalq come in part from gasoil smuggling through Iranian waters. As part of this smuggling activity, corrupt Iranian officials are lured by the promise of easy profits to allow ships to transit Iranian territorial waters en route to markets for the smuggled gasoil. Without this cooperation, Saddam could not smuggle gasoil, the profits from which are used to support terrorist attacks against Iranian soil.
This new headquarters for a terrorist organization suggests what is in store for Iraq's neighbors if Saddam gets his hands on more Iraqi oil revenues. With regard to Iraqi oil sold under the Oil-for-Food program, the net proceeds of Iraqi oil sales are going to meet the needs of the Iraqi people, not the needs of terrorists.
Democratic presidential contender Howard Dean, a strong critic of what he calls President Bush's unilateral approach to foreign policy, urged President Clinton to act unilaterally and enter the war in Bosnia in 1995. (Related item: Text of letter)
"I have reluctantly concluded that the efforts of the United States and NATO in Bosnia are a complete failure," he wrote, citing reports of genocide during the Bosnian civil war. "If we ignore these behaviors ... our moral fiber as a people becomes weakened. ... We must take unilateral action."
The July 19, 1995, letter, obtained by USA TODAY, was written on Dean's official stationery as Vermont governor. The language appears to contradict Dean's core complaint that President Bush has followed a unilateral foreign policy, instead of a multilateral approach that relies on consultation and joint action with allies. He has repeatedly attacked Bush's decision to invade Iraq.
"I think getting rid of Saddam Hussein is a wonderful thing," he saidlast month. "But the question is, is it a good idea to send 135,000 troops unilaterally to do it?"
In the 1995 letter, Dean argued for unilateral action in Bosnia on moral grounds. "As the Catholic Church and others lost credibility during the Holocaust for not speaking out, so will the United States lose credibility," he wrote.
The civil war in the former Yugoslavia gave rise to war crimes and mass murders not seen in the West since World War II. U.N. peacekeeping had failed, but the Clinton administration was undecided on whether to take military action.
Dean told Clinton that America had to intervene alone because the United Nations and NATO were unable to act effectively.He called for Clinton to bomb the Bosnian Serbs and supply arms to the Bosnian Muslims. He opposed using American ground troops.
Clinton eventually won approval from NATO but not the United Nations for a limited bombing campaign that led to peace talks and a NATO peacekeeping force at the end of 1995. About 3,000 U.S. troops are in Bosnia today.
Dean's support for the war in Bosnia is one of several examples he uses to differentiate himself from Democrats who oppose virtually all international intervention. His advisers say his stance has remained consistent over the years: A humanitarian crisis of the scale that occurred in Bosnia should trigger an armed intervention. So, too, would an attack or imminent attack on the United States.
The word "imminent" is key to differentiating Dean's policy from the president's decision to invade Iraq, said Jeremy Ben-Ami, policy director for Dean's campaign.
Bush "sold the war on the basis of an imminent threat to U.S. security, and that has now been shown to be false," Ben-Ami said. Since the threat from Iraq was not imminent, the administration could not properly justify the war, he said.
However, when Bush laid out the case for the war in his 2003 State of the Union address, he said the United States should not wait for an imminent threat.
"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent," Bush said. "Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein ... is not an option."
I do not believe that the UN stands for international law. Defying or ignoring the UN is not the same as defying or ignoring international law.
The UN is a facilitator. They help establish international law by bringing countries together to agree upon and create law. The resolutions they pass are put together by many, which is why enforcing them can create conflict amongst those in the UN. The League of Nations failed when it came to enforcement - the UN should have learned from that.
The UN has the potential of being a great presence and power in this world - they just need more teeth and less discussion.
They intercepted one of those trucks that were carrying a large warhead that had extremely sophisticated plastic -- C- 4 plastic explosives in it. And when the driver of that truck was put under interrogation, he then admitted that as many -- there were a total of 30 warheads that apparently were scheduled to come across.
One of them got caught, and 29 made it across somehow or the other. Of those 29, we are told now that somewhere between six and 12 of them may have, in fact, been laden with chemical explosives that would be then attached to a rocket of some sort inside Iraq that's already there in a separate convoy. And that those warheads would then be exploded over, for example, an encampment near the Coalition Provisional Authority (search) or something like that.
It wasn't found IN the scrap, but on the same boat/shipment as scrap.
Hmmmmm... I don't know much about "yellowcake" uranium, but didn't we blow half of Iraq's army to hell using depleted uranium, in the 1st Gulf War, and could that now be showing up as...scrap metal???
You made it sound like the we (the US) are responsible for it.
isn't depleted uranium of a different compound than yellow cake? I'm sure they can tell the difference. I can't though, I'm not an expert, but I would think it is different enough that they can.
Yes, depleted uranium is different than yellow cake. "Yellow cake" is uranium ore that is considered nuclear grade quality. The depleted uranium is nuclear grade uranium that has fissioned to a point that the nuclear poisons are of such a great concentration that fissionable power can no longer be extracted from them.
The depleted uranium is nuclear grade uranium that has fissioned to a point that the nuclear poisons are of such a great concentration that fissionable power can no longer be extracted from them.
I have NO sympathies towards the people that we used that ammo against, and never did
it's not really a matter of sympathy...it's a matter of the shit making people sick. Uranium is funny in that it doesn't really care who it radiates on...enemy soldier, civilians, our own soldiers...and it doesn't just go away...it says around for years and years and years...which is why pretty much the entire civilized world has called for it's ban.
This has been discussed here before. It is depleted because the highly radioactive types (isotopes) of uranium are removed for use as nuclear fuel or nuclear weapons. There are people living with this stuff embedded in their skin with no side affects.
There are people living with this stuff embedded in their skin with no side affects.
there are many others who think otherwise.
including the US Army....
Several years ago a report by the US Army Environmental Policy Institute said: "If DU enters the body, it has the potential to generate significant medical consequences. The risks associated with DU in the body are both chemical and radiological.
and a LOT of Vets who have symptoms that even have a name, perhaps you have heard of it..."Gulf War Syndrome", would like to have a little more than the assurance of some guy on the internet that it has no side effects.
and then you might want to look at the rates of birth defects in the areas where it has been used...
it's not so cut and dried as you are trying to make it.
The health effects of uranium have been studied extensively for over 50 years. In September 1999 the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry published a Toxicological Profile for Uranium, an update to the original profile published in May 1989. While natural and depleted uranium are considered chemically toxic, they are not considered a radiation hazard.
The environmental effects of depleted uranium have been studied comprehensively by a wide range of governmental and non-governmental bodies both before and after the Gulf War. Burn tests and other evaluations performed under simulated battlefield conditions indicated that the health risks associated with the battlefield use of depleted uranium were minimal and even those could be reduced even more by simple, field-expedient measures, especially, avoidance of depleted uranium-contaminated vehicles and sites. During and after the Gulf War, personnel awareness of the hazards posed by battlefield depleted uranium contamination was generally low. As a result, many personnel did not practice field-expedient measures that would have prevented or mitigated possible exposures.
The two main areas that were not adequately addressed before the Gulf War were:
The medical implications of embedded fragments and
Exposure estimates for friendly fire incidents, recovery activities, and incidental contact scenarios.
These are weaknesses that we have recognized and are addressing. The December 19, 2000 Environmental Exposure Report, Depleted Uranium in the Gulf (II) includes the Army's latest health risk exposure estimates for various Gulf War exposure scenarios. Health risk estimates for DU-contaminated vehicle recovery and incidental contact scenarios indicate that these exposures were well within safety standards. Because of gaps in data pertaining to uranium oxide dust levels inside DU-struck vehicles, exposure estimates for personnel inside DU-struck vehicles at the time of impact, or immediately afterwards, were based on conservative assumptions. These estimates for this highest exposed group indicated that medical follow-up was warranted. DOD is currently in the process of conducting additional live-fire testing in order to further refine the exposure estimates for those troops in or around vehicles when they were hit by DU munitions. It is important to note that over 60 friendly-fire victims have been evaluated by the voluntary VA DU Medical Follow-up Program. Aside from the problems associated with their traumatic injuries, to date, this follow-up program has attributed no illness or other harmful effects in the evaluated veterans to DU.
The voluntary Veterans Affairs DU Medical Follow-up Program was begun in 1993-1994 with the medical evaluations of 33 friendly-fire DU-exposed veterans, many with embedded DU fragments. An additional 29 of the friendly-fire victims were later added to the surveillance program in 1999. In 1998, the program was enlarged to assess the wider Gulf War veteran community's exposure to DU through close contact with DU munitions, inhalation of smoke containing DU particulate during a fire at the Doha depot or while entering or salvaging vehicles or bunkers that were hit with DU projectiles. The published results of these medical evaluations conclude that the presence of retained DU fragments is the only scenario predictive of a high urine uranium value, and those with retained DU fragments continue to have elevated urine uranium levels nine years after the incident. It is unlikely that an individual would have an elevated urine uranium result, and consequently any uranium-related health effects, in the absence of retained DU fragments. Those individuals with normal urine uranium levels now are unlikely to develop any uranium-related toxicity in the future, regardless of what their DU exposure may have been in the Gulf War. Those DU-exposed friendly fire individuals with elevated levels of urinary uranium nine years after the Gulf War have not developed kidney abnormalities, leukemia, bone or lung cancer, or any classical uranium-related adverse outcome. The DU Medical Follow-up Program will continue to evaluate these individuals with elevated urine uranium levels to enable early detection of potential untoward health effects in the future due to their continued chronic exposure to DU.
actually dan, yes...the effects of the radiation haven't been shown to conclusively cause cancer...but I don't know that they can rule out other things as of yet. I mean, Gulf War Syndrome is a very real problem. The reports of high levels of birth defects in areas where it was used are also troublesome. And that report seemed to focus solely on the effects of the radiation, not the chemical problems. It's sort of strange also that the US Army Environmental Policy Institute says one thing and the Office of the Special Assistant for Gulf War Illnesses is saying something else, isn't it? I wonder which office is gonna have to deal with the Vets who are sick now and don't know why.
But one shouldn't pretend that there are no problems with this shit.
You know, doctors used to say that smoking tobacco was good for your lungs.
Depleted uranium (DU) used in Nato weapons in the Balkans has no detectable effect on human health, according a European Union panel of experts.
The European Commission ordered the investigations after claims that veterans of peacekeeping missions in Bosnia and Kosovo had developed illnesses, particularly cancer, after being exposed to depleted uranium used in armour-piercing weapons.
"I don't think there is any reason to be afraid," said Professor Ian McAulay of Dublin's Trinity University, who headed the panel.
In the case of the average back garden, there is as much uranium as you would find in a shell-Prof Ian McAulay, EU expert
The Department of Defense announced today the release of a RAND scientific literature review that indicates no evidence of harmful health effects directly linked to depleted uranium exposures at levels experienced by Gulf War veterans.
The report, "A Review of the Scientific Literature as it Pertains to Gulf War Illnesses: Volume 7 Depleted Uranium," is the latest report commissioned by the office of the special assistant for Gulf War illnesses. The report responds to veterans' concerns that depleted uranium might be the cause of some of their illnesses.
The report states that there are no peer reviewed published reports of detectable increases of cancer or other negative health effects from radiation exposure to inhaled or ingested natural uranium at levels far exceeding those likely in the Gulf. This is mainly because the body is very effective at eliminating ingested and inhaled uranium and because the low radioactivity of natural or depleted uranium means that the mass of uranium needed for significant internal exposure is virtually impossible to obtain. Large variations in exposure to radioactivity from natural uranium in the normal environment have not been associated with negative health effects.
Exposure to uranium at high doses can cause kidney problems. However, no increase in kidney disease has been observed in relatively large occupational populations chronically exposed to natural uranium at concentrations above normal ambient levels.
Researchers at the Baltimore VA Medical Center are following the group of Gulf War Veterans with the greatest exposure to depleted uranium, veterans with embedded fragments. Although these individuals have an array of health problems, many of which are related to their combat injuries, researchers say "To date no manifestations of kidney disease attributable to the chemical toxicity of depleted uranium have been found; neither do these individuals appear to have manifestations attributable to radiation effects."
RAND is a nonprofit institution with a long history of independent research. RAND had experts review the literature, including Dr. Naomi Harley, an authority on radiation physics, Dr. Ernest Foulkes, a heavy metal toxicologist, and Dr. Lee Hilborne, a pathologist. Their review encompassed literature relating to both radiation and heavy metal toxicity risks published or accepted for publication in peer-reviewed journals, books, government publications and conference proceedings.
In January 2001, news media in many parts of the world carried reports that postulated links between NATO's use of Depleted Uranium ammunition in Kosovo and Bosnia with allegedly higher incidences of leukemia, other cancers, and other negative health effects said to be occuring among NATO troops who had served in those areas and among local civilian populations.
Although a very large body of existing scientific and medical research clearly established that such a link between Depleted Uranium ammunition and the reported illnesses was extremely unlikely, NATO Secretary General George Robertson immediately established an Ad Hoc Committee on Depleted Uranium to serve as a clearing house for information to be shared among interested nations.
To date, the scientific and medical research continues to disprove any link between Depleted Uranium and the reported negative health effects. Furthermore, the present evidence strongly suggests that NATO troops serving in the Balkans are not suffering negative health effects different from those suffered by their colleagues who have not served in the Balkans. Nevertheless, NATO is not complacent about this matter, and will continue to share information about this issue. The following web pages, which contain a large volume of material on this subject, represent part of NATO's effort in this regard.
(CNN) -- U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said Saturday that it remains unclear whether weapons of mass destruction will be found in Iraq. On Friday, the Bush administration's former top weapons investigator, David Kay, told the Reuters news agency he had concluded that former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had no stockpiles of weapons.
CNN? What a joke! CNN apparently didn't find it fitting to tell its viewers that Kay believes that Saddam had them but shipped them to Syria before the war.
Even Clinton has admitted that he believed and believes that there are WMD's in Iraq.
I haven't seen a direct quote from Clinton on that.
Is this close enough?: http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,916233,00.html
what countries did Iraq invade in those 12 years?
none.
and you say that is getting nowhere.
One: an imminent threat to the security of the US from Iraq in regard to WMDs.
I don't doubt for a second that Saddam would have made WMD's readily available to terrorists.
Two: The failure (he claims) of multilateral security (UN) to deal with that threat.
Are you telling me the UN was successful? LOL! Saddam dicked around with the UN for 12 years. In my world, that's unsuccessful.
Three: Iraq (he claims) was one of those nations who aided and abetted the terrorist attacks on 9/11.
I have no reason to believe that he didn't, or wouldn't. He aided and abetted Palestinain terrorists.
So any reason to go to war is ok with you? If so, then you have embraced international anarchy, the worldview of Hitler. That isn't your worldview, is it?
Your words, not mine.
I haven't seen a direct quote from Clinton on that.
Then you haven't been paying attention.
I refer you to the statement I made about Bush's official statement that the US went to war against Iraq because of it's alleged ties to 9/11.
I refer you to my above statements.
Maybe you have a different name for a hegemonic power that seeks to suspend international law and dominate the world
LOL! When can we expect the UN to occupy us, since we're such war criminals and all?
for the sake of material gain.
Material gain my ass.
You lost all credibility there. There's no basis in fact to suggest such a thing.
It's costing us a fortune to be in Iraq, and we get very little oil from all of the Middle East, much less from Iraq.
and you say that is getting nowhere.
He didn't abide by one single UN resolution.
I don't know what world you live in, but yes, I would call that getting nowhere.
look, either you respect the UN process or you don't.
we didn't abide by them either.
did or did not Iraq invade any country in the last 12 years?
did we?
look, either you respect the UN process or you don't.
I have no respect for the UN. They're an impotent organization who's time has passed.
we didn't abide by them either.
What didn't we abide by?
did or did not Iraq invade any country in the last 12 years?
No, because we were constantly in their backyard.
did we?
Yes. Is that your "Evil Nations Of The World" litmus test? Nevermind what the nations we invaded were doing.
we get it.
you have no respect for international law.
you have no respect for international law.
The UN has no respect for international law.
They're an impotant organization that is unwilling or unable to enforce their own resolutions.
do you think that might have something to do with the fact that one of the major players isn't known for cooperating with them?
Please review resolutions 660, 687, and 1441.
We were authorized to do what we did. The U.N. didn't want to do what they said they authorized and would rather keep Saddam on double secret probation until he did what they wanted him to do.
Once again crabs portrays himself as pro-terrorist.
"Quit stalking me" - Torpedo-8
September 25, 2002
The Democrats' Case Against Saddam Hussein
As the date approaches for likely Congressional action on an Iraq resolution, Democrats have begun sounding the alarms of dissent. Hinting at a "Wag the Dog" scenario, they have questioned whether Iraq truly poses a clear and present danger to the United States and implied that the Bush Administration may only be acting with an eye toward November. Speaking on the floor last week, Senator Byrd appears to have gotten this latest ball rolling:
"What Congress needs is solid evidence. What we need are answers. Does Saddam Hussein pose an imminent threat to the United States? Should the United States act alone as this administration has been threatening to do? Should Congress grant the President authority to launch a preemptive attack on Iraq?" [floor statement, 9/20/02]
Al Gore followed suit on Monday, albeit in much stronger terms, expressing concern that "[the President] is demanding in this high political season that Congress speedily affirm that he has the necessary authority to proceed immediately against Iraq." Gore went on to add, "no international law can prevent the United States from taking actions to protect its vital interests, when it is manifestly clear that there is a choice to be made between law and survival. I believe, however, that such choice is not presented in the case of Iraq" [speech, 9/23/02].
Few would disagree that legitimate questions remain to be considered regarding our policy toward Iraq, among them such issues as the scope of the authority given the President to act and the likely long-term U.S. investment in a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq. However, questions over the evil nature of the regime and whether or not it poses a threat to our interests seem already to have been addressed, as the following statements attest.
These statements - by leading Democrat Senators - spell out a strong case against Iraq, and they have another thing in common - all were made in 1998. Yet, if the threat was real then, it only stands to reason that it has grown over the last four years, a fact supported by the testimony of Iraqi defectors as well as recent intelligence reports as to the chemical, biological and nuclear weapons capabilities of Baghdad.
In fairness, a few of these Senators have continued to recognize this increased threat and maintained a certain level of consistency on the subject. Unfortunately, others have not.
Consider the following remarks by a key Democrat: "There should be no doubt, Saddam's ability to produce and deliver weapons of mass destruction poses a grave threat to the peace of that region and the security of the world. . .Saddam should never doubt the will of the American people, their legislators, their military, or their commander-in-chief to protect our interests, defend our security, and ensure the well-being of our fellow citizens and that of our friends and allies around the world. He should know that when it comes to protecting our vital national interests, Americans will stand as one. We will speak as one. And whenever, necessary, we will act as one."
Of course, these were the comments of Vice President Al Gore in February 1998,not those of presidential aspirant Al Gore in September 2002. And yet, they claim that Republicans are the ones politicizing the case against Iraq?
bout says it all.
Not yet...
From Hillary's (the ex-co-president) speech on the senate floor discussing the use of force against Saddam...
...In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad.
In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.
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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.
Now this much is undisputed. The open questions are: what should we do about it? How, when, and with whom?...
link
From a 1999 Clinton administration report:
Evading U.N. Resolutions and Failure to Disarm
Summary
While its repression of the Iraqi people continues, the Iraqi regime still is far from complying with its obligations under United Nations Security Council resolutions.
It has not fully complied with a single resolution.
It has not fully declared and destroyed its WMD programs. It has not ceased concealment of its WMD. It has not responded fully to questions from UNSCOM and the IAEA. (UNSCRs 687, 707, 715, 1051)
It has not returned Kuwaiti and Third Country POWs and Missing Persons (UNSCRs 686 and 687). 605 Kuwaiti POW/MIAs and 34 Saudis remain unaccounted for.
It has not returned all stolen Kuwaiti property (UNSCR 686). In fact, some is still deployed with Iraqi military units
It has not stopped repressing its civilian population (UNSCR 688).
More from the 1999 report:
Iraq is a Regional Threat
Summary
Iraq under Saddam Hussein remains dangerous, unreconstructed, and defiant. It has not disarmed. It has never apologized or expressed regret for the invasion of Kuwait. It continues to repress its people.
This is a dangerous regime that threatens its neighbors, has a long history of aggression, has ambitions to dominate the Gulf by force, and retains the capability to do so.
Still more:
Regime Change
Saddam's record over the past 10 years, however, demonstrates that he will never comply with UN resolutions and that he will continue to repress his own people and threaten his neighbors. That is why we believe that the only way to address the security needs of the international community and the needs of the people of Iraq is through a new government in Baghdad, one that is committed to living in peace with its neighbors and respecting the rights of its citizens. Iraq, the region, and the world would be better off with a new government in Iraq...
...In a post-Saddam Iraq, the United States will take the lead to foster economic development, restore Iraqi civil society, rebuild the middle class, and restore Iraq's health and education sectors.
Terrorist ties included in report:
link
The satellite photograph shows a new headquarters complex that Saddam Hussein has built for the Mujahedin-e-Khalq. The complex is located in Falluja, approximately 40 kilometers west of Baghdad. Construction was begun in late 1998 and is still going on. The site covers approximately 6.2 square kilometers and includes lakes, farms, barracks, administrative buildings and other facilities. The facility can accommodate between 3,000 and 5,000 MEK members. The inset shows the MEK's headquarters complex, which is used to coordinate the activities of the organization throughout Iraq and to plan attacks against targets in Iran and elsewhere.
Saddam Hussein spends millions in funds that he controls to support terrorism and threaten his neighbors. Not to help the people of Iraq.
Finally, there is also a terrible irony in all this. The revenues Saddam Hussein used to pay for this new headquarters complex for the Mujahedin-e-Khalq come in part from gasoil smuggling through Iranian waters. As part of this smuggling activity, corrupt Iranian officials are lured by the promise of easy profits to allow ships to transit Iranian territorial waters en route to markets for the smuggled gasoil. Without this cooperation, Saddam could not smuggle gasoil, the profits from which are used to support terrorist attacks against Iranian soil.
This new headquarters for a terrorist organization suggests what is in store for Iraq's neighbors if Saddam gets his hands on more Iraqi oil revenues. With regard to Iraqi oil sold under the Oil-for-Food program, the net proceeds of Iraqi oil sales are going to meet the needs of the Iraqi people, not the needs of terrorists.
This was all Clinton administration words from 1999.
I have no respect for the UN. They're an impotent organization who's time has passed.
The UN is an impotent organization that should have never been.
I do not believe that the UN stands for international law. Defying or ignoring the UN is not the same as defying or ignoring international law.
if not the UN, than what is international law?
Dean urged Clinton to take unilateral action in Bosnia
By Steve Komarow, USA TODAY
Democratic presidential contender Howard Dean, a strong critic of what he calls President Bush's unilateral approach to foreign policy, urged President Clinton to act unilaterally and enter the war in Bosnia in 1995. (Related item: Text of letter)
"I have reluctantly concluded that the efforts of the United States and NATO in Bosnia are a complete failure," he wrote, citing reports of genocide during the Bosnian civil war. "If we ignore these behaviors ... our moral fiber as a people becomes weakened. ... We must take unilateral action."
The July 19, 1995, letter, obtained by USA TODAY, was written on Dean's official stationery as Vermont governor. The language appears to contradict Dean's core complaint that President Bush has followed a unilateral foreign policy, instead of a multilateral approach that relies on consultation and joint action with allies. He has repeatedly attacked Bush's decision to invade Iraq.
"I think getting rid of Saddam Hussein is a wonderful thing," he saidlast month. "But the question is, is it a good idea to send 135,000 troops unilaterally to do it?"
In the 1995 letter, Dean argued for unilateral action in Bosnia on moral grounds. "As the Catholic Church and others lost credibility during the Holocaust for not speaking out, so will the United States lose credibility," he wrote.
The civil war in the former Yugoslavia gave rise to war crimes and mass murders not seen in the West since World War II. U.N. peacekeeping had failed, but the Clinton administration was undecided on whether to take military action.
Dean told Clinton that America had to intervene alone because the United Nations and NATO were unable to act effectively.He called for Clinton to bomb the Bosnian Serbs and supply arms to the Bosnian Muslims. He opposed using American ground troops.
Clinton eventually won approval from NATO but not the United Nations for a limited bombing campaign that led to peace talks and a NATO peacekeeping force at the end of 1995. About 3,000 U.S. troops are in Bosnia today.
Dean's support for the war in Bosnia is one of several examples he uses to differentiate himself from Democrats who oppose virtually all international intervention. His advisers say his stance has remained consistent over the years: A humanitarian crisis of the scale that occurred in Bosnia should trigger an armed intervention. So, too, would an attack or imminent attack on the United States.
The word "imminent" is key to differentiating Dean's policy from the president's decision to invade Iraq, said Jeremy Ben-Ami, policy director for Dean's campaign.
Bush "sold the war on the basis of an imminent threat to U.S. security, and that has now been shown to be false," Ben-Ami said. Since the threat from Iraq was not imminent, the administration could not properly justify the war, he said.
However, when Bush laid out the case for the war in his 2003 State of the Union address, he said the United States should not wait for an imminent threat.
"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent," Bush said. "Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein ... is not an option."
I do not believe that the UN stands for international law. Defying or ignoring the UN is not the same as defying or ignoring international law.
The UN is a facilitator. They help establish international law by bringing countries together to agree upon and create law. The resolutions they pass are put together by many, which is why enforcing them can create conflict amongst those in the UN. The League of Nations failed when it came to enforcement - the UN should have learned from that.
The UN has the potential of being a great presence and power in this world - they just need more teeth and less discussion.
The UN is not interested in international law, international politics yes, but not international law.
The UN is totally political and therefore worthless.
Terrorists Planning Iraq Attack
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108371,00.html
They intercepted one of those trucks that were carrying a large warhead that had extremely sophisticated plastic -- C- 4 plastic explosives in it. And when the driver of that truck was put under interrogation, he then admitted that as many -- there were a total of 30 warheads that apparently were scheduled to come across.
One of them got caught, and 29 made it across somehow or the other. Of those 29, we are told now that somewhere between six and 12 of them may have, in fact, been laden with chemical explosives that would be then attached to a rocket of some sort inside Iraq that's already there in a separate convoy. And that those warheads would then be exploded over, for example, an encampment near the Coalition Provisional Authority (search) or something like that.
Clark on the War
Yellowcake in Rotterdam Harbor May Be From Iraq
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108583,00.html
Yellowcake is not scrap metal.
It wasn't found IN the scrap, but on the same boat/shipment as scrap.
Hmmmmm... I don't know much about "yellowcake" uranium, but didn't we blow half of Iraq's army to hell using depleted uranium, in the 1st Gulf War, and could that now be showing up as...scrap metal???
You made it sound like the we (the US) are responsible for it.
we are responsible for using depleted uranium in our weapons.
we are responsible for using depleted uranium in our weapons.
As are a hundred other countries.
The point was, Bill Fold was trying to make it sound like it was yellowcake from the US.
At least that's how I read it.
hundreds of other countries use depleted uranium weapons? care to show some documentation for that?
No
It doesn't really matter to the issue being discussed.
I'm just assuming since the US is a large weapons manufacturer...
isn't depleted uranium of a different compound than yellow cake? I'm sure they can tell the difference. I can't though, I'm not an expert, but I would think it is different enough that they can.
Yes, depleted uranium is different than yellow cake. "Yellow cake" is uranium ore that is considered nuclear grade quality. The depleted uranium is nuclear grade uranium that has fissioned to a point that the nuclear poisons are of such a great concentration that fissionable power can no longer be extracted from them.
so we put it in our ammo and shoot it at people.
it's not really a matter of sympathy...it's a matter of the shit making people sick. Uranium is funny in that it doesn't really care who it radiates on...enemy soldier, civilians, our own soldiers...and it doesn't just go away...it says around for years and years and years...which is why pretty much the entire civilized world has called for it's ban.
This has been discussed here before. It is depleted because the highly radioactive types (isotopes) of uranium are removed for use as nuclear fuel or nuclear weapons. There are people living with this stuff embedded in their skin with no side affects.
there are many others who think otherwise.
including the US Army....
and a LOT of Vets who have symptoms that even have a name, perhaps you have heard of it..."Gulf War Syndrome", would like to have a little more than the assurance of some guy on the internet that it has no side effects.
and then you might want to look at the rates of birth defects in the areas where it has been used...
it's not so cut and dried as you are trying to make it.
From Office of the Special Assistant for Gulf War Illnesses:
The health effects of uranium have been studied extensively for over 50 years. In September 1999 the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry published a Toxicological Profile for Uranium, an update to the original profile published in May 1989. While natural and depleted uranium are considered chemically toxic, they are not considered a radiation hazard.
The environmental effects of depleted uranium have been studied comprehensively by a wide range of governmental and non-governmental bodies both before and after the Gulf War. Burn tests and other evaluations performed under simulated battlefield conditions indicated that the health risks associated with the battlefield use of depleted uranium were minimal and even those could be reduced even more by simple, field-expedient measures, especially, avoidance of depleted uranium-contaminated vehicles and sites. During and after the Gulf War, personnel awareness of the hazards posed by battlefield depleted uranium contamination was generally low. As a result, many personnel did not practice field-expedient measures that would have prevented or mitigated possible exposures.
The two main areas that were not adequately addressed before the Gulf War were:
These are weaknesses that we have recognized and are addressing. The December 19, 2000 Environmental Exposure Report, Depleted Uranium in the Gulf (II) includes the Army's latest health risk exposure estimates for various Gulf War exposure scenarios. Health risk estimates for DU-contaminated vehicle recovery and incidental contact scenarios indicate that these exposures were well within safety standards. Because of gaps in data pertaining to uranium oxide dust levels inside DU-struck vehicles, exposure estimates for personnel inside DU-struck vehicles at the time of impact, or immediately afterwards, were based on conservative assumptions. These estimates for this highest exposed group indicated that medical follow-up was warranted. DOD is currently in the process of conducting additional live-fire testing in order to further refine the exposure estimates for those troops in or around vehicles when they were hit by DU munitions. It is important to note that over 60 friendly-fire victims have been evaluated by the voluntary VA DU Medical Follow-up Program. Aside from the problems associated with their traumatic injuries, to date, this follow-up program has attributed no illness or other harmful effects in the evaluated veterans to DU.
The voluntary Veterans Affairs DU Medical Follow-up Program was begun in 1993-1994 with the medical evaluations of 33 friendly-fire DU-exposed veterans, many with embedded DU fragments. An additional 29 of the friendly-fire victims were later added to the surveillance program in 1999. In 1998, the program was enlarged to assess the wider Gulf War veteran community's exposure to DU through close contact with DU munitions, inhalation of smoke containing DU particulate during a fire at the Doha depot or while entering or salvaging vehicles or bunkers that were hit with DU projectiles. The published results of these medical evaluations conclude that the presence of retained DU fragments is the only scenario predictive of a high urine uranium value, and those with retained DU fragments continue to have elevated urine uranium levels nine years after the incident. It is unlikely that an individual would have an elevated urine uranium result, and consequently any uranium-related health effects, in the absence of retained DU fragments. Those individuals with normal urine uranium levels now are unlikely to develop any uranium-related toxicity in the future, regardless of what their DU exposure may have been in the Gulf War. Those DU-exposed friendly fire individuals with elevated levels of urinary uranium nine years after the Gulf War have not developed kidney abnormalities, leukemia, bone or lung cancer, or any classical uranium-related adverse outcome. The DU Medical Follow-up Program will continue to evaluate these individuals with elevated urine uranium levels to enable early detection of potential untoward health effects in the future due to their continued chronic exposure to DU.
Dan--2
crabgrass--0
"Quit talking to me crabgrass" - Torpedo-8
actually dan, yes...the effects of the radiation haven't been shown to conclusively cause cancer...but I don't know that they can rule out other things as of yet. I mean, Gulf War Syndrome is a very real problem. The reports of high levels of birth defects in areas where it was used are also troublesome. And that report seemed to focus solely on the effects of the radiation, not the chemical problems. It's sort of strange also that the US Army Environmental Policy Institute says one thing and the Office of the Special Assistant for Gulf War Illnesses is saying something else, isn't it? I wonder which office is gonna have to deal with the Vets who are sick now and don't know why.
But one shouldn't pretend that there are no problems with this shit.
You know, doctors used to say that smoking tobacco was good for your lungs.
No DU weapons risk, say experts
Depleted uranium (DU) used in Nato weapons in the Balkans has no detectable effect on human health, according a European Union panel of experts.
The European Commission ordered the investigations after claims that veterans of peacekeeping missions in Bosnia and Kosovo had developed illnesses, particularly cancer, after being exposed to depleted uranium used in armour-piercing weapons.
"I don't think there is any reason to be afraid," said Professor Ian McAulay of Dublin's Trinity University, who headed the panel.
In the case of the average back garden, there is as much uranium as you would find in a shell-Prof Ian McAulay, EU expert
RAND REVIEW INDICATES NO EVIDENCE OF HARMFUL HEALTH EFFECTS FROM DEPLETED URANIUM
The Department of Defense announced today the release of a RAND scientific literature review that indicates no evidence of harmful health effects directly linked to depleted uranium exposures at levels experienced by Gulf War veterans.
The report, "A Review of the Scientific Literature as it Pertains to Gulf War Illnesses: Volume 7 Depleted Uranium," is the latest report commissioned by the office of the special assistant for Gulf War illnesses. The report responds to veterans' concerns that depleted uranium might be the cause of some of their illnesses.
The report states that there are no peer reviewed published reports of detectable increases of cancer or other negative health effects from radiation exposure to inhaled or ingested natural uranium at levels far exceeding those likely in the Gulf. This is mainly because the body is very effective at eliminating ingested and inhaled uranium and because the low radioactivity of natural or depleted uranium means that the mass of uranium needed for significant internal exposure is virtually impossible to obtain. Large variations in exposure to radioactivity from natural uranium in the normal environment have not been associated with negative health effects.
Exposure to uranium at high doses can cause kidney problems. However, no increase in kidney disease has been observed in relatively large occupational populations chronically exposed to natural uranium at concentrations above normal ambient levels.
Researchers at the Baltimore VA Medical Center are following the group of Gulf War Veterans with the greatest exposure to depleted uranium, veterans with embedded fragments. Although these individuals have an array of health problems, many of which are related to their combat injuries, researchers say "To date no manifestations of kidney disease attributable to the chemical toxicity of depleted uranium have been found; neither do these individuals appear to have manifestations attributable to radiation effects."
RAND is a nonprofit institution with a long history of independent research. RAND had experts review the literature, including Dr. Naomi Harley, an authority on radiation physics, Dr. Ernest Foulkes, a heavy metal toxicologist, and Dr. Lee Hilborne, a pathologist. Their review encompassed literature relating to both radiation and heavy metal toxicity risks published or accepted for publication in peer-reviewed journals, books, government publications and conference proceedings.
In January 2001, news media in many parts of the world carried reports that postulated links between NATO's use of Depleted Uranium ammunition in Kosovo and Bosnia with allegedly higher incidences of leukemia, other cancers, and other negative health effects said to be occuring among NATO troops who had served in those areas and among local civilian populations.
Although a very large body of existing scientific and medical research clearly established that such a link between Depleted Uranium ammunition and the reported illnesses was extremely unlikely, NATO Secretary General George Robertson immediately established an Ad Hoc Committee on Depleted Uranium to serve as a clearing house for information to be shared among interested nations.
To date, the scientific and medical research continues to disprove any link between Depleted Uranium and the reported negative health effects. Furthermore, the present evidence strongly suggests that NATO troops serving in the Balkans are not suffering negative health effects different from those suffered by their colleagues who have not served in the Balkans. Nevertheless, NATO is not complacent about this matter, and will continue to share information about this issue. The following web pages, which contain a large volume of material on this subject, represent part of NATO's effort in this regard.
NATO link
(CNN) -- U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said Saturday that it remains unclear whether weapons of mass destruction will be found in Iraq. On Friday, the Bush administration's former top weapons investigator, David Kay, told the Reuters news agency he had concluded that former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had no stockpiles of weapons.
CNN? What a joke! CNN apparently didn't find it fitting to tell its viewers that Kay believes that Saddam had them but shipped them to Syria before the war.