If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction!
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Below is speech made by ex UN weapons inspect Scott Ritter to a meeting in the house of commons that claims Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction.
In America we say, "Don't let friends drive drunk." There is a drunk at the wheel of American foreign policy. Friends of America must stand up and stop the madness, and take away the key driving the American machine towards war.
I am a card-carrying Republican who voted for George W Bush for president. I am not here as a friend of the Iraqi people. I was a weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991-8. I was not there to be friendly but to disarm Iraq. I am here as an American citizen concerned about the state of my country which is heading down a path that will lead to death and destruction. It will be a war the like of which you have never seen.
The United States of America has the best trained, the best led, the best equipped military forces the world has ever seen. We are the most efficient killing machine in the history of mankind. Iraq will be destroyed with a vengeance. I am a 12-year marine veteran. I fought in the first war against Iraq. When we talk about war, be clear that war means death and destruction.
When the bullets fly there is no movie music in the background. You kill people. You get killed. That's what war is about. There is no such thing as a good war. There can be a just war. If Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction today I will be the first to sign up to wage war. For then Saddam Hussein is a pariah leader at the head of a rogue state.
If Iraq has weapons of mass destruction then I'm with you, Tony Blair and George W Bush. But back it up with evidence. I'll tell you what I know. I know that since December 1998 there have not been weapons inspectors in Iraq, and that without weapons inspectors we cannot know what has happened on the ground.
But, as of December 1998, the weapons inspectors had destroyed the factories that could be used to produce chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. They are gone.
We backed it up with monitoring and the most stringent controls in history to ensure that Iraq wasn't reconstituting that ability. We could not account for everything. But we do know that the factory where, for example, they made liquid bulk anthrax ceased production. We blew it up in 1996. Liquid bulk anthrax cannot survive for more than three years even under ideal storage conditions. So even if Iraq did hide some from us it is no longer viable.
As of December 1998 we came close to zero level in terms of Iraq's ability to produce or maintain weapons of mass destruction. Biological and chemical weapons must be produced in industrial facilities possessing the highest level of technology. Iraq would have had to procure much of this from abroad to reconstitute facilities.
I know that sanctions are a sieve. But I worked with the best intelligence agencies in the world. If Iraq were to attempt to acquire this equipment they would be detected. Even if they got it and attempted to reconstitute a biological, chemical or nuclear factory, it is detectable.
When you have the prime minister of Great Britain or president of the United States speak of a dossier, demand this dossier. The Bush administration has such a hunger for war with Iraq. They are desperate for any evidence to justify war with Iraq. If the US had any credible information it would be on the front page of every American newspaper tomorrow.
We are told we're going to war with Iraq because Iraq represents a threat to our national security. We are told they possess weapons of mass destruction and are linked with Al Qaida and terrorism. One-there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Two-you cannot link Saddam Hussein to the terrorism of 11 September or anti-Western terror groups. Three-there is no record of Saddam Hussein providing anybody with weapons of mass destruction.
If this is not a national security issue, why are we doing it? It is about American domestic politics. We have in Washington DC an administration that has a visceral hatred of everything the Clinton administration stood for, including his unwillingness to decisively confront Iraq.
They spent time developing an ideology that espouses regime change in Iraq, and unilateralism in foreign policy-we don't need the rest of the world, the United Nations or international law. We will do this, they say, because we are America-we are the sole remaining superpower, and we can get away with it.
This has become policy-a part of the neo-conservatives' ideology. I have been accused of being unpatriotic, an enemy of the state. I'm a decorated 12-year marine veteran who has put my life on the line for my country. I am exercising my constitutional duty to hold my elected representatives accountable for what they do in my name.
If we go to war against Iraq we are only reinforcing the case put forward by Osama Bin Laden and his associates. They said 11 September was the opening salvo in a clash of civilisations between the West and Islam.
Most of Islam rejected this. They said, "No way, Osama. You don't speak for us." If we replaced Saddam Hussein, what will follow?
I don't believe that the US has the stomach to occupy Iraq for any length of time. When the US withdraws from Iraq our appointed government will collapse, and what will replace it will be Islamic fundamentalist. Many states in the region also have regimes whose populations are becoming more and more restive. You could see a domino effect-Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Turkey, Egypt-and Osama Bin Laden will have won.
An invasion of Iraq is the quickest way to give legitimacy to the men who attacked the US on 11 September. There is a momentum developing for war on Iraq. In California 20,000 marines are training for taking part in a major ground operation in Iraq as early as October this year.
Boeing is accelerating delivery of smart bombs so we can be in a position to wage war as early as October. Once you start deploying troops, committing economic, military and political capital to war with Iraq, then war becomes inevitable. The time to stop war with Iraq is now.
If you in Britain are able to create a shift in the policy of the Blair government you will have achieved a victory of tremendous proportions which will motivate people in America.
Many Americans feel powerless to stop this war. They need an example. I appeal to the British to lead by example. Stop this war.
http://www.stopwar.org.uk
In America we say, "Don't let friends drive drunk." There is a drunk at the wheel of American foreign policy. Friends of America must stand up and stop the madness, and take away the key driving the American machine towards war.
I am a card-carrying Republican who voted for George W Bush for president. I am not here as a friend of the Iraqi people. I was a weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991-8. I was not there to be friendly but to disarm Iraq. I am here as an American citizen concerned about the state of my country which is heading down a path that will lead to death and destruction. It will be a war the like of which you have never seen.
The United States of America has the best trained, the best led, the best equipped military forces the world has ever seen. We are the most efficient killing machine in the history of mankind. Iraq will be destroyed with a vengeance. I am a 12-year marine veteran. I fought in the first war against Iraq. When we talk about war, be clear that war means death and destruction.
When the bullets fly there is no movie music in the background. You kill people. You get killed. That's what war is about. There is no such thing as a good war. There can be a just war. If Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction today I will be the first to sign up to wage war. For then Saddam Hussein is a pariah leader at the head of a rogue state.
If Iraq has weapons of mass destruction then I'm with you, Tony Blair and George W Bush. But back it up with evidence. I'll tell you what I know. I know that since December 1998 there have not been weapons inspectors in Iraq, and that without weapons inspectors we cannot know what has happened on the ground.
But, as of December 1998, the weapons inspectors had destroyed the factories that could be used to produce chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. They are gone.
We backed it up with monitoring and the most stringent controls in history to ensure that Iraq wasn't reconstituting that ability. We could not account for everything. But we do know that the factory where, for example, they made liquid bulk anthrax ceased production. We blew it up in 1996. Liquid bulk anthrax cannot survive for more than three years even under ideal storage conditions. So even if Iraq did hide some from us it is no longer viable.
As of December 1998 we came close to zero level in terms of Iraq's ability to produce or maintain weapons of mass destruction. Biological and chemical weapons must be produced in industrial facilities possessing the highest level of technology. Iraq would have had to procure much of this from abroad to reconstitute facilities.
I know that sanctions are a sieve. But I worked with the best intelligence agencies in the world. If Iraq were to attempt to acquire this equipment they would be detected. Even if they got it and attempted to reconstitute a biological, chemical or nuclear factory, it is detectable.
When you have the prime minister of Great Britain or president of the United States speak of a dossier, demand this dossier. The Bush administration has such a hunger for war with Iraq. They are desperate for any evidence to justify war with Iraq. If the US had any credible information it would be on the front page of every American newspaper tomorrow.
We are told we're going to war with Iraq because Iraq represents a threat to our national security. We are told they possess weapons of mass destruction and are linked with Al Qaida and terrorism. One-there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Two-you cannot link Saddam Hussein to the terrorism of 11 September or anti-Western terror groups. Three-there is no record of Saddam Hussein providing anybody with weapons of mass destruction.
If this is not a national security issue, why are we doing it? It is about American domestic politics. We have in Washington DC an administration that has a visceral hatred of everything the Clinton administration stood for, including his unwillingness to decisively confront Iraq.
They spent time developing an ideology that espouses regime change in Iraq, and unilateralism in foreign policy-we don't need the rest of the world, the United Nations or international law. We will do this, they say, because we are America-we are the sole remaining superpower, and we can get away with it.
This has become policy-a part of the neo-conservatives' ideology. I have been accused of being unpatriotic, an enemy of the state. I'm a decorated 12-year marine veteran who has put my life on the line for my country. I am exercising my constitutional duty to hold my elected representatives accountable for what they do in my name.
If we go to war against Iraq we are only reinforcing the case put forward by Osama Bin Laden and his associates. They said 11 September was the opening salvo in a clash of civilisations between the West and Islam.
Most of Islam rejected this. They said, "No way, Osama. You don't speak for us." If we replaced Saddam Hussein, what will follow?
I don't believe that the US has the stomach to occupy Iraq for any length of time. When the US withdraws from Iraq our appointed government will collapse, and what will replace it will be Islamic fundamentalist. Many states in the region also have regimes whose populations are becoming more and more restive. You could see a domino effect-Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Turkey, Egypt-and Osama Bin Laden will have won.
An invasion of Iraq is the quickest way to give legitimacy to the men who attacked the US on 11 September. There is a momentum developing for war on Iraq. In California 20,000 marines are training for taking part in a major ground operation in Iraq as early as October this year.
Boeing is accelerating delivery of smart bombs so we can be in a position to wage war as early as October. Once you start deploying troops, committing economic, military and political capital to war with Iraq, then war becomes inevitable. The time to stop war with Iraq is now.
If you in Britain are able to create a shift in the policy of the Blair government you will have achieved a victory of tremendous proportions which will motivate people in America.
Many Americans feel powerless to stop this war. They need an example. I appeal to the British to lead by example. Stop this war.
http://www.stopwar.org.uk
0
Comments
Well I must say he makes sense about the alleged 'dossier' containing proof that Saddam is amassing weapons of mass destruction. Most people have been left wondering why, after 10 years of relative calm, the U.S. military machine is turning to Iraq with such determination and suddenness. If the dossier exists and Saddam is rearming- which is quite probable given the man's record- then it should be made public. The U.S. and Britain can only gain from doing so.
If, however, the U.S. has decided to remove Saddam for ulterior motives Britain should have nothing to do with it. And like King of Jordan said, it would be madness for the U.S. to engage in a war with Iraq whilst the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is allowed to rage on with the West looking on and doing nothing about it. The Middle East is rapidly becoming a time bomb and at times like this we should move with extreme caution.
Oops. Think he made an error here. Don’t you?
He cannot know what is there and yet he says there is nothing there. Surely a contradiction.
Do you think he is in the intelligence loop? Surely the US Govt would include him in everything they know :rolleyes:
~~~~~~~
Just thought that you would like me to draw attention to a couple of other things he said…
Kind of the opposite to your beliefs, isn’t it IronCurtain?
Oh dear. Bet this really pisses you off.
You leave me unattended for damn near four years, and I will burn UK to the ground, and then sink it into the sea...
Of course, Hussein - being the lover of peace that he is - has simply occupied himself with calling Bingo at his local mosques...
If Saddam has no weapons of mass destruction, what was it he used on the Kurds? Magic?
You may be assured of one certainty...Iraq is about to be dusted off and fed to the hogs...the excivation of Lake Bagdad will soon begin.
I've already laid it out to you in other threads..."...this will be like no other war ever fought..."
All the 'royal palaces' and newly constructed government buildings, 'all' military sites and buildings...anything above ground and much that is below is going to be hit and hit again continuously for about three days with a total news blackout to the region until we are finished.
The new e-bombs and emt-bombs will get a good testing...and most of the civilians and soldiers will be left unharmed!
The only thing that could change curent planning would be the sudden death of sadam and the baath party...could happen but probably won't.
Keep an eye toward dawn, 9-11-2002, and you will see and hear the message of 'Thor's Hammer' as played by B-2!
By the way say Iraq did have those weapons what would be the best way to provoke him into using them - to back him into a corner where he had nothing to lose! One of the reasons that allied forces did not pursue Iraqs troops into Iraq after liberating Kuwait was because they feared that if Saddam was backed into a corner he might then decide to use chemical and biological weapons to repell allied forces as he would have nothing to lose!
http://www.stopwar.org.uk
It would certainly be miraculous for the U.S. to do the former and achieve the latter.
Unfortunately one suspects the civilian casualties will in fact be high. And if Saddam is to be believed the real war will be fought street by street, house by house. The Iraqi army is not going to congregate inside palaces and bases for you to shoot down like wooden ducks at a fun fair. What Saddam wants is to get U.S. soldiers to the ground and to roam around the ruins of Baghdad. Then the carnage (on both sides, and with civilians caught in the middle) will truly begin. Remember Chechynia?
Anyone who thinks saddam does not have the WOMD has his/her head in the sand.
Gosh, now here's an outlandish thought for you.
Perhaps they have been detected and that is precisely why the US/UK are going into Iraq
:rolleyes:
Where were you in 1991?
What happened then?
You really are a funny "man" IronCurtain. How did you get so delusional, is it drug abuse, alcohol did youe momma drop you on your head when you was a baby?
They stopped, because they thought they had done the job they were sent to do. Iraq was already in full retreat and some factions were rising against Saddam. Why risk more US/UK lives? Thta history has shown them to be wrong, is another reason why they should make sure tihs time.
http://www.stopthestopwarmovement.org.uk
This coming war is all about western imperialist control of the middle east. There are many other brutal regimes inthe middle east such as Suadi Arabia but America never has a go at them because they tow the line and do what America wants.
Any attack on Iraq will cause enormous suffering for the Iraqi people killing, maiming and injuring tens of thousands of them and devastating the country even more! Sanctions have so far killed over one million Iraqis since 1991 and hampered rebuilding of Iraq!
That is why everyone must join the mass anti-war demonstration on Saturday September 28 in London starting at the Embankment at 1pm and marching to Hyde Park!
http://www.stopwar.org.uk
Mmm they did didn't they. Did you see the pictures on the telly.
I did.
In fact have some of them on my wall...
Just a note for the moronic amongst us. It matter not that soldiers were using civillian cars. They are still soldiers. The fact that they had no armour left, is testament to the skill of US forces.
But you maintain that they were unarmed. How would they have fought?
The main reason that the uprising failed was becuase the allies failed to support it. And the use of helicopter gunships...
I suggest you do a little more research. The US has openly condemned some of the action of the Saudis
Possibly.
Of course it is worth pointing out that these people are already suffering under a brutal oppressive regime.
A regime which you have yet to criticise. Why is that?
Bollocks. It isn't sanctions which have killed these people. Ask yourself, why are the sanctions there?
It is the actions (or lack of) by their leader which causes the sanction to be in place.
Ah, the communist demands. You must attend.
Well you can kiss my arse. Enjoy your little get together, but remember that there will only be a tiny, tiny precentage of the population there.
As usual.
Or what? Shipped to the gulags? A budding Stalin, eh?
i]Originally posted by stee1gate [/i]
Did Sadam phone you up and tell you that?
So the billions of pounds, and decades of research into protection against bio weaponry had no effect?
Steal, do you have any idea the level of training a British serviceman recieves to counter the threat NBC attack? I was in the cadets and I recieved some NBC training! I know from one short course what to do in the event of some sort of attack. Imagine the level of protection a serving trooper will get!
Maybe you might want to also remind yourself that British and American armoured vehicles are immune to attacks by nuclear, chemical and biological. Main battle tanks are capable of withstanding the and fighting through the blast and the ensuing firestorm of a nuclear explosion.
Our troops stopped the attack because in 1991 it was impossible to predict what would happen in 2001. Our generals decided that to press on the attack would result in no gains, and a more stable political climate could be attained by allowing Saddam to live and by keepin him on a short lead. This hasn't worked, so now the generals are drawing up plans to finish the job off.
Saddam knows he could never defeat the British army on its own, let alone an American one. His country would face total destruction at the hands of a combined force. His troops would have no idea what hit them as shells from Challenger 2's dug in 5 miles away wrecked their tanks and installations.
Confusion would result as overflying B-52's drop thousands of tonnes of ordanance on his troops, vehicles and installations. Any airforce he has left would be annhilated within hours of the first attack. Offshore, carrier divisions launch swarms of fighter bombers accompanied by jamming aircraft and AWACs early warning planes. RAF harriers and Torndoes scream over his cities dropping cluster munitions on the power plants and barracks. Of course we would try and keep civlian casualties to a minimum, however if he thinks for one second we would stave off an attack because his troops are hidden in cities he is mistaken.
Saddam would never know what hit him, why do you think he is allowing weapons inspectors back again........
They have already suffered enough through the last Gulf War in which their country was relentlessly pounded with depleted uranium shells, fuel air bombs, napalm and so called smart bombs which destroyed the civilian infrastructure such as hospitals, schools factories and water and sewage treatment plants! Depleted uranium shell led to massive outbreaks of radiation relation diseases such as birth defects, cancers and lueakemia. Sanctions have meant that thev country cannot be rebuilt and both the Iraqi economy and the country has been left in ruins!
If western leaders think that they can get away with another war on Iraq they have another thing coming! This time the people of America and Britain will rise up in massive numbers and not let their leader attack Iraq! On September the 28th in London for example hundreds of thousands will be on the streets to make their anti-war message known, which will hopefully be repeated in every major American city as well!
http://www.stopwar.org.uk
Yes he has fallen out of favour with the Western leaders, because he has been adamant to remain as uncooperative as possible in the 11 years since the last war.
His only chance is to admit defeat and give in to our demands. If he does then his people will continue to suffer and he will have to look around as he watches as his cities are systematically destroyed.
Yes the people will suffer slightly whilst we use smart bombs. How long do you think it would take for us to decide that it is too expensive to keep trying to avoid civilian casualties and resort to using normal munitions again? How long do you think we would hold of sending hundreds of main battle tanks into Bagdhad and levelling the city, and shooting on sight anyone who dares to throw a rock at our troops?
If Saddam continues to refuse to cooperate then his people will continue to suffer. If he still carries on then he won't have any people left, either because he has been killed or his country levelled.
Get a clue, please. Your pathetic attempts to argue with us are laughable.
Talk about fantasies....
I have never read Steelgate say anything bad about Saddam. To be honest this makes me think that perhaps he doesn't want him removed. For a start, you know that Steelgate has a thing for dictatorial oppressive regimes, especially those which stand up against the US. You know that this outweighs any human rights violations - we all know how Communists just love human rights :rolleyes: - which Saddam may have perpetrated.
Come on Steelgate, show your true colours...
No, they won't.
Were I a betting man, I would wager that it might well have started by then.
The year's anniversary approaches alarmingly.
By the way, Americans, a question: if GWB were to invade without Congressional approval, would this constitute an illegal circumvention of Congress' sole perogative on the declaration of war, issue of letters of marque, etc.? If so, would it be an impeachable offence? More an academic question than a practical one -- the thought just got me interested.
*prays for anything that could lead to GWB's impeachment*
No, GWB can declare war (he already has) against Iraq...and in 90 days get approval from Congress.
He has full reign to fight terrorism any way he wants to...and only a few really stupid (politically) people in either house oppose him. During times of war or threat of war it is not wise to oppose taking action against an enemy.
Trust me when I tell you that all the talk in the press over there is just talk...when the BIG DOG barks all the muts will take notice and either stand with him or run for cover...there is no 'concealment' here!
Do understand that all the islamics will soon be treated as enemy in many places they have thought to make their havens...if deported back to their own lands it will be a very good thing for the eventual islamic reformation...a reformation which must come one day to people still living in midevial times!
Diesel
88888888:D
Ladies and Gentlemen of the international community, I present the latest evolution in Americana, the Bushite. It questions not what its leaders' motivations may be nor what their power-crazed interests may be, nor what the repercussions for its own nation in the future may be.
Patriotism for this noisesome creature means allegiance to its government not its nation. Too bad there are so many of the darn critters rushin about across my beloved homeland, the public debate and freedom of speech will be the first casualities of their expanding conflict.
Diesel is right.
First of all, a declaration of war is unnecessary, since the situation in Iraq still falls under the failure of Iraq to observe the terms of the truce they signed.
Second, deployment of troops, etc. will be supported by the people of the US and Congress when the time comes. That is simply obvious based on historic evidence.
As for patriotism. I suggest you don't try to claim you have a clue what it means to Diesel, because it is obvious you don't. He has "walked the walk", and knows the price that may be paid to rid the world of a madman in possession of weapons of mass destruction.
Be curious to see your reaction if Saddam was involved in the attack of Brussels with VG....
Greenhat,
I think Clandestine made a great point, a patriot is loyal to his country, not to his government if they are not acting in the best interests of the country.
Now I don't agree with his politics, but I think his definition of patriotism is dead on. It is healthy to question the government when you have a problem with its policies, that's democracy.
While I believe Diesel is a patriot (who wouldn't!) it isn't merely because he's "walked the walk". Its because he cares for his country and is willing to invest in it and tell the government when he doesn't think somethings right.
As a US citizen living and working in the EU I am confident I have a broader perspective than most of my countrymen residing back home and being told just what the government wants us all to believe despite the fact that they can produce no concrete evidence of their allegations. Its all right-wing warmongering to pump up the military industrial complex and line the Bush family coffers further in the process. Believe me, through the Carlysle Group, Papa Bush is sitting reeeeeaaal pretty these days.
Just as was the case with the truth behind the vietnam war, I am confident that the lies of this administration will become known well after the fact and then all the boot stompers will grow very silent with disgust while we detractors will gladly say "I told you so".
As for Saddam being able to hit Brussels, I am at pains to control my laughter. Even at the height of his power he could perhaps hit Israel on a clear day, but scud missile dont traverse continents im afraid.
Nope, this has been an intent of Bush since he campaigned. He has a stick up his butt carried over from Daddy's days in office, and Saddam provides just the target Bush needs at this time to divert American attention away from his pitiful handling of the domestic state of affairs and to try to gain some additional ground for the party in the mid term congressional elections to back his short-sighted personal tirades.