NationStates Jolt Archive

Banned Iraqi Missile Engines Found in Jordan -UN


By Evelyn Leopold

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Engines for long-range missiles have turned up in Jordan from unguarded sites in Iraq that were once monitored for materials that could produce banned weapons, U.N. inspectors said on Wednesday.


In a closed-door U.N. Security Council meeting, Demetrius Perricos, the acting director of the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspections Commission, warned that too many pieces of equipment were leaving Iraq, some as scrap.


"We found a few more engines and a few other items in Jordan," Perricos told Reuters. "It is getting bad. Too many things are coming out."


UNMOVIC, using photographs and serial numbers, previously reported discovering SA-2 engines among scrap in the Dutch port city of Rotterdam. They were used in Iraq's Al Samoud 2 banned missile program.


The motors found in Jordan were also SA-2 engines "and that is why we were interested," Perricos said.


U.N. inspectors left Iraq shortly before the war in March 2003 and have not been allowed to return since. The United States has sent its own teams to search for weapons of mass destruction. The fate of the search teams is not known under the new Iraqi interim government that takes office on June 30.


Perricos briefed the Security Council on his recent report that showed satellite pictures of the engines discovered in the Netherlands and a site in Iraq stripped of its equipment, possibly by looters.


The site, called the Shumokh stores, northwest of Baghdad, had contained equipment that could be used for chemical and biological weapons and was once monitored by UNMOVIC.


PAKISTAN PROTESTS


Perricos suggested that UNMOVIC's arms experts could be used in other international disarmament areas, such as a new council anti-terrorist program that seeks to punish black marketeers who traffic in nuclear, chemical and biological weapons components.


But Pakistan's U.N. ambassador, Munir Akram, lashed out at Perricos, saying his commission should be shut down and had no right to propose other tasks, diplomats reported.


"We see this as an organization which is unable to do its job," Akram told reporters afterward. "The job may not be there to be done, and therefore we think that the quicker we find some way to certify that there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the better it is."


Other delegations, notably Russia and Germany, disagreed, arguing that UNMOVIC's expertise in Iraq should not be wasted.


Pakistan admitted this year that Abdul Qadeer Khan, a scientist revered as the father of the country's nuclear bomb, had smuggled nuclear secrets to North Korea, Iran and Libya, and was under house arrest.


In order to get Pakistan's support, the council's resolution setting up the new non-proliferation program said any action would not be retroactive.


Romanian Ambassador Mihnea Ioan Motoc was chosen on Wednesday to head a new council committee that would monitor unconventional weapons falling into the hands of terrorists.


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=3&u=/nm/20040610/ts_nm/iraq_un_weapons_dc

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=4SASQGPTNW0IICRBAE0CFEY?type=topNews&storyID=5387821

*BUMP*

These missle engines, were made to fit missles that have a range of 111 miles..and are fitted to carry conventional warheads.

Like Scuds....only better.

They are banned becuase they exceed the range limitation set by the UN.

Sorry, this isnt the "smoking gun" Bush is praying for.

These missle engines, were made to fit missles that have a range of 111 miles..and are fitted to carry conventional warheads.

Like Scuds....only better.

They are banned becuase they exceed the range limitation set by the UN.

Sorry, this isnt the "smoking gun" Bush is praying for.

But provides an interesting example of the desperation that the conservatives are now apparently feeling about the lack of any "smoking gun".

Well, they were told to get rid of them and it looks like they did. Lets not forget that Jordan is a key ally of the United States.

These missle engines, were made to fit missles that have a range of 111 miles..and are fitted to carry conventional warheads.

Like Scuds....only better.

They are banned becuase they exceed the range limitation set by the UN.

Sorry, this isnt the "smoking gun" Bush is praying for.

It's not supposed to be a "smoking gun"..but you're mistaken those same missles could easily be adapted for bio-chem warheads...what it "is" is a pattern of conduct in violation of the Armistice that Iraq had signed at the end of the Gulf War..they were supposed to be destroyed..not scrapped, not transported elsewhere..not sold off..but destroyed..

And Jordan's relationship with us is tenous at best..hardly a key ally...and I fail to see how that relates to the discovery of these materials Steph?

Yeah, we weren't looking for missle engines sadly.

What?

Oh no!


Proof that Saddam............. COMPLIED!


-Z-

What?

Oh no!


Proof that Saddam............. COMPLIED!


-Z-

Complied?...how?...they weren't destroyed?...they found themselves to another middle eastern country where they could be reassembled and used by some other group of terrorists?.

What?

Oh no!


Proof that Saddam............. COMPLIED!


-Z-

Complied?...how?...they weren't destroyed?...they found themselves to another middle eastern country where they could be reassembled and used by some other group of terrorists?.


Here, I'll pull out the relevant portions for you in a better order of presentation.


Engines for long-range missiles have turned up in Jordan from unguarded sites in Iraq that were once monitored for materials that could produce banned weapons

Perricos briefed the Security Council on his recent report that showed satellite pictures of the engines discovered in the Netherlands and a site in Iraq stripped of its equipment, possibly by looters.

The site, called the Shumokh stores, northwest of Baghdad, had contained equipment that could be used for chemical and biological weapons and was once monitored by UNMOVIC.

U.N. inspectors left Iraq shortly before the war in March 2003 and have not been allowed to return since.


To remind you of the history of the Al Sammoud II program:

The Al Samoud II program was declared by Saddam - willingly and without prompting - to the UN in '92. His declaration to the UN included the statement that 13 of the 40 tests had in fact exceeded the maximum range imposed under the sanctions, but that those tests happened without payload or full guidance complement. He did not believe that the missiles in useable form (i.e - as a real weapon) were in violation and stated that fact. After all, flying an empty, unguided missile slightly further than the limit is hardly much of a threat. The US/UN disagreed, and after some bickering back and forth Saddam agreed to ditch the program.

He was in the process of destroying the missiles when the US kicked the UN team out and shortly thereafter went to war.

These engines have been noted as being some of those that were being monitered already by the UN team while the destruction process was ongoing

It was the US that kicked the inspectors out before the destruction of this program was completed.

It was the US that did not provide adequate security to military areas upon gaining control of the country.

The fact that a few engines got dragged out of the country and sold for scrap - probably AFTER the Saddam regime had already been defeated is NOT indicitive of any wrongdoing by Saddam.


He declared the program.
He agreed to end it.
The UN was monitering the destruction of the missiles.
And GW put a stop to all that.

Up until GW kicked the inspectors out, the UN disarmament process was working exactly the way it was supposed to for these missiles.

What?

Oh no!


Proof that Saddam............. COMPLIED!


-Z-

Complied?...how?...they weren't destroyed?...they found themselves to another middle eastern country where they could be reassembled and used by some other group of terrorists?.


Here, I'll pull out the relevant portions for you in a better order of presentation.


Engines for long-range missiles have turned up in Jordan from unguarded sites in Iraq that were once monitored for materials that could produce banned weapons

Perricos briefed the Security Council on his recent report that showed satellite pictures of the engines discovered in the Netherlands and a site in Iraq stripped of its equipment, possibly by looters.

The site, called the Shumokh stores, northwest of Baghdad, had contained equipment that could be used for chemical and biological weapons and was once monitored by UNMOVIC.

U.N. inspectors left Iraq shortly before the war in March 2003 and have not been allowed to return since.


To remind you of the history of the Al Sammoud II program:

The Al Samoud II program was declared by Saddam - willingly and without prompting - to the UN in '92. His declaration to the UN included the statement that 13 of the 40 tests had in fact exceeded the maximum range imposed under the sanctions, but that those tests happened without payload or full guidance complement. He did not believe that the missiles in useable form (i.e - as a real weapon) were in violation and stated that fact. After all, flying an empty, unguided missile slightly further than the limit is hardly much of a threat. The US/UN disagreed, and after some bickering back and forth Saddam agreed to ditch the program.

He was in the process of destroying the missiles when the US kicked the UN team out and shortly thereafter went to war.

These engines have been noted as being some of those that were being monitered already by the UN team while the destruction process was ongoing

It was the US that kicked the inspectors out before the destruction of this program was completed.

It was the US that did not provide adequate security to military areas upon gaining control of the country.

The fact that a few engines got dragged out of the country and sold for scrap - probably AFTER the Saddam regime had already been defeated is NOT indicitive of any wrongdoing by Saddam.


He declared the program.
He agreed to end it.
The UN was monitering the destruction of the missiles.
And GW put a stop to all that.

Up until GW kicked the inspectors out, the UN disarmament process was working exactly the way it was supposed to for these missiles.

You're telling me it took him 12 yrs to destroy these missiles?...ahuh...

Sorry. Typo.

'02 - not '92


i.e - Just before the war.

It sucks for Saddam that he had all these weapon restrictions put on him, then got invaded. Perhaps if he had nukes like North Korea they would have tried to negotiate instead.

Aluran - Since clearly you weren't paying attention to the issue at the time (it was a very hot item during the month before the war started)

HEre is Blix's statement in Feb '03 requesting their destruction: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2790831.stm

Here, after some disagreements back and forth, is when Iraq started destroying them in March of '03: http://uttm.com/stories/2003/03/02/iraq/main542460.shtml

and we all remember when the war started don't we?



-Z-

I personally dont think we need a "smoking gun" saddam shoulda been taken out the first time around :?

Aluran - Since clearly you weren't paying attention to the issue at the time (it was a very hot item during the month before the war started)

HEre is Blix's statement in Feb '03 requesting their destruction: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2790831.stm

Here, after some disagreements back and forth, is when Iraq started destroying them in March of '03: http://uttm.com/stories/2003/03/02/iraq/main542460.shtml

and we all remember when the war started don't we?



-Z-

Thank you for the links..I read them...I also know that few missiles destroyed in front of UN inspectors rates as a "dog and pony show"...destroying with a bulldozer?...Oh come on....a a few pounds of plastique explosives placed at appropriate spots would have destroyed the missiles without a problem....you seem to want to believe what the Hussein regime was saying hook, line, and sinker?..or am I getting the wrong impression here?

Aluran - Since clearly you weren't paying attention to the issue at the time (it was a very hot item during the month before the war started)

HEre is Blix's statement in Feb '03 requesting their destruction: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2790831.stm

Here, after some disagreements back and forth, is when Iraq started destroying them in March of '03: http://uttm.com/stories/2003/03/02/iraq/main542460.shtml

and we all remember when the war started don't we?



-Z-

Thank you for the links..I read them...I also know that few missiles destroyed in front of UN inspectors rates as a "dog and pony show"...destroying with a bulldozer?...Oh come on....a a few pounds of plastique explosives placed at appropriate spots would have destroyed the missiles without a problem....you seem to want to believe what the Hussein regime was saying hook, line, and sinker?..or am I getting the wrong impression here?

You want to put C4 on rocket fuel, be my guest.

Thank you for the links..I read them...I also know that few missiles destroyed in front of UN inspectors rates as a "dog and pony show"...destroying with a bulldozer?...Oh come on....a a few pounds of plastique explosives placed at appropriate spots would have destroyed the missiles without a problem....you seem to want to believe what the Hussein regime was saying hook, line, and sinker?..or am I getting the wrong impression here?

Fine, but the same logic is true here. A few missle engines and a nearly 20 year old artillery shell with expired Sarin gas in it rate as a "dog and pony" show when it comes to the immediate threat of WMD which was used to galvanize support for the Iraq invasion.

It isn't a question about believing everything Saddam says "hook, line and sinker". The evidence is speaking for itself and it's saying that while he may have had these capabilities in the past, the sanctions placed on him and his partial compliance with UN directives removed any credible threat he could have at one time mustered in the WMD arena.

Aluran - Since clearly you weren't paying attention to the issue at the time (it was a very hot item during the month before the war started)

HEre is Blix's statement in Feb '03 requesting their destruction: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2790831.stm

Here, after some disagreements back and forth, is when Iraq started destroying them in March of '03: http://uttm.com/stories/2003/03/02/iraq/main542460.shtml

and we all remember when the war started don't we?



-Z-

Thank you for the links..I read them...I also know that few missiles destroyed in front of UN inspectors rates as a "dog and pony show"...destroying with a bulldozer?...Oh come on....a a few pounds of plastique explosives placed at appropriate spots would have destroyed the missiles without a problem....you seem to want to believe what the Hussein regime was saying hook, line, and sinker?..or am I getting the wrong impression here?


Well, if you read the second article - you will note some pretty amazing quotes from the Bush side of things too:

Merci Viana, a spokeswoman, said. "The president has always predicted that Iraq would destroy its Al Samoud missiles as part of its game of deception."

Oh yes... complying by disarming is ....deceptive?

This was all when the US was insisting that IRaq still had huge WMD stockpiles, and were proclaiming the destruction of the Al Sammouds to be a dog and pony show to distract from the reall WMD that they were looking for.

But where are those stockpiles?

Do I have to do ALL your research for you? Yeah, they did the first destruction as a media event to show compliance to the world. Like no other country ever does things for the media....

And then they got serious about it and started destroying them a a fast rate (http://www.worldrevolution.org/article/742). Hans Blix was very complimentary about the job.


But of course all they said to that was: But we still think he has WMD.


Anyway - as stated, this article shows NOTHING that can in any way be construed as evidenciary regarding the actions of Saddam, especially as it clearly states that the engines likely disapeared while IRaq was under US occupation. you cannot fairly pin that on the guy you had already removed from power.

-Z-

For me the bottom line is the Americans in favour of this war have been grasping at straws for months. Since all the pretexts for going to war have now been exposed as lies and or bad Intel. The whole , we didn't need a reason "Saddam was bad" argument doesn't hold a lot of water. The pretext for war was based on a threat to Americans.. that's it , that's all. Or shall I go get you some speeches Bush made before the war even started? How soon people forget.

You may believe Saddam should of been taken out, one problem, it wasn't the right of another nation to make that call. Plain & simple. The war was based on lies and all the innocent people killed in the war puts their blood directly on the Bush administration. There was NO threat to America by Iraq.. that is after all the bottom line. So, not only does Bush have the blood of all those innocent Iraqi's on his hands, he has the blood of over 800 American servicemen on his hands too.

Don't go saying it was worse under Saddam.. if our key objective was only to be better then Saddam, that's rather pathetic at best.

You may believe Saddam should of been taken out, one problem, it wasn't the right of another nation to make that call. Plain & simple. The war was based on lies and all the innocent people killed in the war puts their blood directly on the Bush administration. There was NO threat to America by Iraq.. that is after all the bottom line. So, not only does Bush have the blood of all those innocent Iraqi's on his hands, he has the blood of over 800 American servicemen on his hands too.

Don't go saying it was worse under Saddam.. if our key objective was only to be better then Saddam, that's rather pathetic at best.

Not to mention the fact that Saddam most likely would have been taken out anyway if we hadn't acted unilaterally. The tide in the UN was going against him until the Bush administration polarized everyone by calling those that didn't support immediate action "irrelevant" and cowardly. Mind you, that immediate action was supposedly necessary because we faced an "immenent threat" from these mythical WMDs which have yet to be located.

You may believe Saddam should of been taken out, one problem, it wasn't the right of another nation to make that call. Plain & simple. The war was based on lies and all the innocent people killed in the war puts their blood directly on the Bush administration. There was NO threat to America by Iraq.. that is after all the bottom line. So, not only does Bush have the blood of all those innocent Iraqi's on his hands, he has the blood of over 800 American servicemen on his hands too.

Don't go saying it was worse under Saddam.. if our key objective was only to be better then Saddam, that's rather pathetic at best.

Not to mention the fact that Saddam most likely would have been taken out anyway if we hadn't acted unilaterally. The tide in the UN was going against him until the Bush administration polarized everyone by calling those that didn't support immediate action "irrelevant" and cowardly. Mind you, that immediate action was supposedly necessary because we faced an "immenent threat" from these mythical WMDs which have yet to be located.

One can of poor grade Sarin. Run for the hills Berkylvania.. The argument has been lost. The war was illegal and unjust.

What surprises me is how Bush is trying to make it look like a victory with this new UN resolution.. All the resolution says is every one agrees that Iraq should get their country back and they can throw out the Americans if they're asked to. Hardly a Bush "victory"

I personally dont think we need a "smoking gun" saddam shoulda been taken out the first time around :?
The US should never have invested in him to do their dirty work in the 1980's either. They also should never of given him the weapons that they did?

You may believe Saddam should of been taken out, one problem, it wasn't the right of another nation to make that call. Plain & simple. The war was based on lies and all the innocent people killed in the war puts their blood directly on the Bush administration. There was NO threat to America by Iraq.. that is after all the bottom line. So, not only does Bush have the blood of all those innocent Iraqi's on his hands, he has the blood of over 800 American servicemen on his hands too.

Don't go saying it was worse under Saddam.. if our key objective was only to be better then Saddam, that's rather pathetic at best.

Not to mention the fact that Saddam most likely would have been taken out anyway if we hadn't acted unilaterally. The tide in the UN was going against him until the Bush administration polarized everyone by calling those that didn't support immediate action "irrelevant" and cowardly. Mind you, that immediate action was supposedly necessary because we faced an "immenent threat" from these mythical WMDs which have yet to be located.

Actually..I believe Bush said that he wasn't going to wait until Saddam became an imminent threat...

Tide going against him?...He'd been in power since 69 I believe..he..like Castro wasn't going anywhere..even 12 yrs after UN sanctions, inspections, and posturing by all sides after the first Gulf War he STILL wasn't going anywhere, the Russians sure as hell needed him there..he owed them 5 billion..the French had contracts outstanding..so did much of Europe..apparently.

There was simply no evidence to suggest he would have been overthrown by his own people..the Kurds had been oppressed to the point that only a no-fly zone in the north protected them....and the Shiites were slaughtered the last time they tried to rise up against him...he'd even been so craven as to have assasinated members of his own family who might threaten his powerbase...

No..without our "unilateralism"....how does one call a 28 member coalition of UN members mind you..become considered a unilateral action?

One can of poor grade Sarin. Run for the hills Berkylvania.. The argument has been lost. The war was illegal and unjust.

Absolutely. How could something have been "immenent" if we haven't managed to find it over a year later?


What surprises me is how Bush is trying to make it look like a victory with this new UN resolution.. All the resolution says is every one agrees that Iraq should get their country back and they can throw out the Americans if they're asked to. Hardly a Bush "victory"

Well, compared to all the other nonsense that's gone on over there, the sad fact is that even this little bit qualifies as a "victory" for this administration. It's easy to exceed your standards when you lower them.

I don't get some of you people...it took the United States 13 yrs of peaceful effort after the Revolutionary War to come up with a government and document that all parties would sign...our present Constititution...we've been in Iraq a little over a year..and we're still undergoing combat operations..how bout giving us some friggin slack here?

I don't get some of you people...it took the United States 13 yrs of peaceful effort after the Revolutionary War to come up with a government and document that all parties would sign...our present Constititution...we've been in Iraq a little over a year..and we're still undergoing combat operations..how bout giving us some friggin slack here?

Hell no! Not when our government is running away with an unjust war which the whole world advocated against and where they have no exit strategy, no final price tag and no respect for international law.

I don't get some of you people...it took the United States 13 yrs of peaceful effort after the Revolutionary War to come up with a government and document that all parties would sign...our present Constititution...we've been in Iraq a little over a year..and we're still undergoing combat operations..how bout giving us some friggin slack here?

Because the revolutionary war you did for yourself.

Iraq you did to somebody else.


There is a diference.

I don't get some of you people...it took the United States 13 yrs of peaceful effort after the Revolutionary War to come up with a government and document that all parties would sign...our present Constititution...we've been in Iraq a little over a year..and we're still undergoing combat operations..how bout giving us some friggin slack here?
The US should never have been there in the first place. Now slack off.

I don't get some of you people...it took the United States 13 yrs of peaceful effort after the Revolutionary War to come up with a government and document that all parties would sign...our present Constititution...we've been in Iraq a little over a year..and we're still undergoing combat operations..how bout giving us some friggin slack here?
The US should never have been there in the first place. Now slack off.

Tell that to the approximate 300,000 in mass graves..tell that to he Kurds in the North...and to the slaughtered Shiites who bravely tried to rebel in 91...tell that to the mothers, daughters who had to endure Oday and Usay's sick pleasures in their rape rooms..a previous administration had used Iraq to further it's own national interests..fine..I get that..but there is no one better suited then to try to do justice here then us. At any rate, we are there..it's a fact..deal with it..

Actually..I believe Bush said that he wasn't going to wait until Saddam became an imminent threat...

Wrong. From Bush's 2003 State of the Union address:

the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised…. Under (UN) Resolutions 678 and 687 — both still in effect — the United States and our allies are authorized to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction.

Let us also not forget about the famous, "Saddam's trying to buy nukes and nuke parts from Africa" justification which was later proven to be a lie. Or the intimate links with Al Qaeda which were just another sham.

Even if that was true and Bush was acting against a future threat, why now? Why go against the will of the majority of the world and then insult them to invade on his timetable? Why establish a dangerous precedent of a unilateral "first strike" on the eventual possibility that perhaps at some point in the future a country might possibly have access to some amount and type of WMD that they then could, in theory, use against US interests? That's all he's got without immenent threat. It comes down to little more than Bush invaded Iraq because they looked at us funny.


Tide going against him?...He'd been in power since 69 I believe..he..like Castro wasn't going anywhere..even 12 yrs after UN sanctions, inspections, and posturing by all sides after the first Gulf War he STILL wasn't going anywhere, the Russians sure as hell needed him there..he owed them 5 billion..the French had contracts outstanding..so did much of Europe..apparently.

So did the US! Halliburton was a major stockholder in two of those French companies that did business with Iraq. Those transaction occured while Cheney was at the helm from 1997-2000 and amounted to over $73 million worth of contracts. This is only one example.

As for 12 years of sanctions, why should they have gone farther? They were working. There were no weapons of mass destruction and hadn't been since at least 1994 because Saddam couldn't advance his programs due to the sanctions. He was not a threat, immediate or otherwise, and his irrelevance was leading to his own downfall until Bush gave him center stage in the world theater once again.


There was simply no evidence to suggest he would have been overthrown by his own people..the Kurds had been oppressed to the point that only a no-fly zone in the north protected them....and the Shiites were slaughtered the last time they tried to rise up against him...he'd even been so craven as to have assasinated members of his own family who might threaten his powerbase...

Yes, this is true, but popular opinion in Iraq was swinging against him, both outside of the Middle East and within it. If Bush wasn't so hot in the biscuit to invade on his own timetable, it is quite probable that within a matter of a few more months, once UN inspectors had completed their jobs, a more multinational coalition with full UN backing would have been assembled to oust him with the blessings of the Middle East.


No..without our "unilateralism"....how does one call a 28 member coalition of UN members mind you..become considered a unilateral action?

Because given the fact that we pressured most of those countries into sending troops and when you add up the total number of troops from other countries and find out that it isn't even half of the total number of troops from the US, it sounds pretty darn unilateral to me.

I don't get some of you people...it took the United States 13 yrs of peaceful effort after the Revolutionary War to come up with a government and document that all parties would sign...our present Constititution...we've been in Iraq a little over a year..and we're still undergoing combat operations..how bout giving us some friggin slack here?

Hell no! Not when our government is running away with an unjust war which the whole world advocated against and where they have no exit strategy, no final price tag and no respect for international law.

Actually...it's not the whole world..a good portion of the UN backed our "unilateral' action..and respect for international law..ahuh..and where was international law when European nations were actively breaking sanctions by doing business with Hussein?

I don't get some of you people...it took the United States 13 yrs of peaceful effort after the Revolutionary War to come up with a government and document that all parties would sign...our present Constititution...we've been in Iraq a little over a year..and we're still undergoing combat operations..how bout giving us some friggin slack here?

Hell no! Not when our government is running away with an unjust war which the whole world advocated against and where they have no exit strategy, no final price tag and no respect for international law.

Actually...it's not the whole world..a good portion of the UN backed our "unilateral' action..and respect for international law..ahuh..and where was international law when European nations were actively breaking sanctions by doing business with Hussein?

Those European corporations doing business with Hussein were held in large part by US interests such as Halliburton. Everyone's hands were dirty. Everyone.

I don't get some of you people...it took the United States 13 yrs of peaceful effort after the Revolutionary War to come up with a government and document that all parties would sign...our present Constititution...we've been in Iraq a little over a year..and we're still undergoing combat operations..how bout giving us some friggin slack here?

Hell no! Not when our government is running away with an unjust war which the whole world advocated against and where they have no exit strategy, no final price tag and no respect for international law.

Actually...it's not the whole world..a good portion of the UN backed our "unilateral' action..and respect for international law..ahuh..and where was international law when European nations were actively breaking sanctions by doing business with Hussein?

Those European corporations doing business with Hussein were held in large part by US interests such as Halliburton. Everyone's hands were dirty. Everyone.

So let's run with that..if it as you assert that everyone's hands were dirty, then in my opinion the Euros didn't have a pot to piss in as far as I'm concerned now huh?

So let's run with that..if it as you assert that everyone's hands were dirty, then in my opinion the Euros didn't have a pot to piss in as far as I'm concerned now huh?

How do you mean?

So let's run with that..if it as you assert that everyone's hands were dirty, then in my opinion the Euros didn't have a pot to piss in as far as I'm concerned now huh?

How do you mean?

The big uproar over international law...if everyone's hands were dirty (oh..btw..many of those companies were not US-controlled) in breaking the laws then Europeans complaints regarding the breaking of international laws really has no substance given that everyone was breaking said laws no?

Tell that to the approximate 300,000 in mass graves..tell that to he Kurds in the North...and to the slaughtered Shiites who bravely tried to rebel in 91...tell that to the mothers, daughters who had to endure Oday and Usay's sick pleasures in their rape rooms..a previous administration had used Iraq to further it's own national interests..fine..I get that..but there is no one better suited then to try to do justice here then us. At any rate, we are there..it's a fact..deal with it..


Don't justify the US's actions to us.. Justify them to the Iraqi people:

Tell that to the ~12,000 bodies that are rotting in the streets of Baghdad, of Najaf, of Fallujah.. The US forces refuse to grant burial to those bodies, so justify your actions to them. Tell that to the Sunnis who are dying on a daily basis.. slaughtered.. massacred while on their way to their schools.. their mosques.. their jobs.. because they were in the "Sunni Triangle".. Tell that to the hundreds of wives who were beastily raped in front of their suffering husbands and their children in Abu-Ghraib.. better yet.. tell that to the hundreds who were tortured and dehumanized to a degree Hitler would object to in Abu-Ghraib... Tell that to the common people, who hated Saddam, yet had a sense of national pride so overwhelming that they grabbed Kalashnikovs and stood in front of American tanks, only to be obliterated by its gunfire.. Tell that to the hundreds who watched their sons and daughters die when the Apaches appeared.. Tell that to the innocent child who had a myriad B-52 bombs drop straight onto his head. Tell that to the thousands of children who are born in Iraq today.. mutated.. deformed.. headless.. armless.. legless.. Justify to THEM.. the FUTURE of Iraq, why they had to pay for GW Bush's atrocities.. Tell that to the victims of depleted uranium, cluster bombs, and God knows what other kinds of WMD the US used in Iraq.. Tell that to the victims of Fallujah, which is the key to resistance.. It is for the Americans what Halabjah was for Saddam.. Tell that to its people..

So let's run with that..if it as you assert that everyone's hands were dirty, then in my opinion the Euros didn't have a pot to piss in as far as I'm concerned now huh?

How do you mean?

The big uproar over international law...if everyone's hands were dirty (oh..btw..many of those companies were not US-controlled) in breaking the laws then Europeans complaints regarding the breaking of international laws really has no substance given that everyone was breaking said laws no?

Fine, then we have no justifcation to be over there at all by that rationale.

SA-2 engines . . . OMG, attack of the 60s retro tech!!! :lol:

That's pathetic. A bunch of junk dating back to my parents' time (when they were kids!) turning up as scrap, in an allied* state.

Some people really won't let go, will they? :roll:

*The UK gave Jordan 400 Challenger 1 tanks recently. Hardly a rogue terrorist state.

Tell that to the approximate 300,000 in mass grave.

What the neo-cons don't want you to know is that total is from the last 30 years. It wasn't done in a week and if you do the math, at the rate the Americans are killing Iraqi's they would over the same period of time pass Saddam in Iraqi deaths.

I also suppose there is no rape in the rape capital of the free world.. the USA. I suppose there are no American terrorists.. (Timothy McVeigh)

These are all strawman arguments. The fact is the Bush administration got it wrong. Terribly wrong.

see, we told all of you that iraq was hiding there WMD's in other countries. like i said in the beginning,

---Edited By Nationstates Moderator---

see, we told all of you that iraq was hiding there WMD's in other countries. like i said in the beginning,

---Edited By Nationstates Moderator---

Hmm, you must have said something not nice. Good show!

As for Iraq "hiding" their WMDs, these rocket engines hardly count as WMDs any more than that single shell of old sarin gas does.

see, we told all of you that iraq was hiding there WMD's in other countries. like i said in the beginning,

---Edited By Nationstates Moderator---



Feel free to actually READ the article. Especially the parts that make it clear that these engines (NOT WMD) were most likely looted from unprotected military areas and sold for scrap by persons unknown AFTER THE US HAD ALREADY TAKEN OVER THE COUNTRY!