The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi air force between 1983 and 1998; while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tons. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assumed that these quantities are now unaccounted for.
POLL: The repercussions of a US attack on Iraq
- Thread starter candletrader
- Start date
If he allows it, they are going to be murdered by Saddam. Mr. Hussein currently is in total control of the entire US/Allies military machine on a "launch/don't launch" basis. And guess what, as a consolation prize (based on your theory), if he chooses "don't launch," Iraq keeps all of its oil.
Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.
There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared and that at least some of this was retained over the declared destruction date. It might still exist.
Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was indeed destroyed in 1991.
As I reported to the council on the 19th of December last year, Iraq did not declare a significant quantity, some 650 kilos or bacterial growth media, which was acknowledged as reported in Iraqâs submission to the Almarim panel in February 1999. As a part of its 7 December, 2002, declaration Iraq resubmitted the Almarim panel document but they table showing this particular import of media was not included. The absence of this table would appear to be deliberate, as the pages of the resubmitted document were renumbered.
In the letter of 24th of January this year to the president of the Security Council, Iraqâs foreign minister stated that, I quote, âAll imported quantities of growth media were declared,â unquote. This is not evidence. I note that the quantity of media involved would suffice to produce, for example, about 5,000 liters of concentrated anthrax.
There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared and that at least some of this was retained over the declared destruction date. It might still exist.
Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was indeed destroyed in 1991.
As I reported to the council on the 19th of December last year, Iraq did not declare a significant quantity, some 650 kilos or bacterial growth media, which was acknowledged as reported in Iraqâs submission to the Almarim panel in February 1999. As a part of its 7 December, 2002, declaration Iraq resubmitted the Almarim panel document but they table showing this particular import of media was not included. The absence of this table would appear to be deliberate, as the pages of the resubmitted document were renumbered.
In the letter of 24th of January this year to the president of the Security Council, Iraqâs foreign minister stated that, I quote, âAll imported quantities of growth media were declared,â unquote. This is not evidence. I note that the quantity of media involved would suffice to produce, for example, about 5,000 liters of concentrated anthrax.
1963 was a misprint, the first US advisor was sent in 1955.Quote from fairplay:
Thank you max, you must be a historian and not a trader. :eek:
1963-1973? What happened in 1973? A US conflict?
Maybe I am too stupid, to much of an idiot, so please enlighten me.
1973. Hmmm, a conflict? What conflict?
March 29, 1973 - The US withdrew its last 2,500 troops and this is the official date for the end of military involvement in Vietnam.
Interesting link on MSNBC site:
Broad ranges of views from permanent members and elected members.
Just click on the country name..
http://www.msnbc.com/modules/intera...ld/intl/brill/UNIraq_bcol_012703.htm&0cv=CA01
Josh
Broad ranges of views from permanent members and elected members.
Just click on the country name..
http://www.msnbc.com/modules/intera...ld/intl/brill/UNIraq_bcol_012703.htm&0cv=CA01
Josh
nice to see Spain's supporting military action.
does anyone care about Guinea's opinion? how many of you even knew it was a country?
or what Angola thinks? they've just finished 30 years of civil war -- just the people we should be listening to... lol
or Pakistan? one dictator's opinion on another dictator? wonderful..
does anyone care about Guinea's opinion? how many of you even knew it was a country?
or what Angola thinks? they've just finished 30 years of civil war -- just the people we should be listening to... lol
or Pakistan? one dictator's opinion on another dictator? wonderful..
yes, actually they have been very vocal about it but because they are a tiny country politically speaking they don't get a lot of attention.
They have (from the beginning) promised troops, logistics, cash and more for the war against Iraq. I think it is because they know too well about terrorism. Spain has had to live with it for many decades.
[I'm talking about the Basque separatist terror group called ETA]
They have (from the beginning) promised troops, logistics, cash and more for the war against Iraq. I think it is because they know too well about terrorism. Spain has had to live with it for many decades.
[I'm talking about the Basque separatist terror group called ETA]
Quote from candletrader:
If America's attack on Iraq is not about oil, then September 11th was actually nothing more than a series of unrelated accidents... get real!! ROFL
God Bless the people of America... they surely need it...
Why, Candle, do you and the rest of your oil gang continue to avoid answering the question that IF THE US's LUST FOR OIL DOMINATES ITS FOREIGN POLICY AGENDA, WHEN HAS IT ACTUALLY GONE IN SOMEWHERE AND TAKEN THE OIL? If your thinking had any iota of truth in it, our greatest opportunity (other than after WWII when we were the sole atomic power on earth) would have been Desert Storm. Did we overrun Kuwait and take over the oil fields? Did we press our overwhelming military supremacy to overrun Iraq and take over its oil fields?
You and others have been asked that question many times on this board, but you refuse to acknowledge it. Why? You simply can't answer it because it hasn't happened.
The only reasonable statement that you and the other conspiracists can possibly make is that the war is going to be about oil in the sense of ensuring the stability of the global trade of oil (what we did in Kuwait in '91) which is vital to the global economy, not just ours, and NOT the U.S. stealing the oil. There's a big difference.
Well, it isn't just this question, and it certainly is not just Candle.
There are too many examples of this to begin to ponder (as have occurred on ET). My favorite is a question I have posed to Traderfut2000 so many times as to have completely given up on getting an answer. But the "non-answer" servers to make my point better than even a nonsense answer could.
It is very easy to make statements with no basis of fact. This is how "debates" deteriorate into "arguments". But still, I would rather read someone's opinion and understand why they believe what they believe than to be subjected to endless "cut and past artistry". At least their unsubstantiated claims are their own. And possibly they can be at least open to listening to another side of the issue, because they may eventually realize that their beliefs are not well founded. Whereas the "cut and paste" geniuses think that their "sources" constitute "proof".
Well said. But this has been said so many times that perhaps it negates my previous (above) comments. This very fact has been mentioned time and time again. Yet the "all about oil" argument goes on. We did not take the oil in Kuwait. We did not take the oil in Iraq. We have never taken any "spoils of war" any place. In any conflict. Other than our independence after the Revolutionary War.
Peace,
rs7