Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 22 Oct '10 23:08 / 1 edit
    At 5pm EST Friday 22nd October 2010 WikiLeaks released the largest classified military leak in history. The 391,832 reports ('The Iraq War Logs', document the war and occupation in Iraq, from 1st January 2004 to 31st December 2009 (except for the months of May 2004 and March 2009) as told by soldiers in the United States Army. Each is a 'SIGACT' or Significant Action in the war. They detail events as seen and heard by the US military troops on the ground in Iraq and are the first real glimpse into the secret history of the war that the United States government has been privy to throughout.

    The reports detail 109,032 deaths in Iraq, comprised of 66,081 'civilians'; 23,984 'enemy' (those labeled as insurgents); 15,196 'host nation' (Iraqi government forces) and 3,771 'friendly' (coalition forces). The majority of the deaths (66,000, over 60 of these are civilian deaths.That is 31 civilians dying every day during the six year period. For comparison, the 'Afghan War Diaries', previously released by WikiLeaks, covering the same period, detail the deaths of some 20,000 people. Iraq during the same period, was five times as lethal with equivallent population size.
    http://warlogs.wikileaks.org/

    surprised no one is discussing this around here yet. Comments?
  2. 23 Oct '10 00:27
    wouldn't the CIA be justified in taking this bozo out?
  3. 23 Oct '10 00:29
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    wouldn't the CIA be justified in taking this bozo out?
    and, (naturally), in harvesting his organs?
  4. 23 Oct '10 13:44
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    and, (naturally), in harvesting his organs?
    It's about time some of the truth came out. Far too many things are "classified" without good reason.
  5. 23 Oct '10 14:36
    "The truth is out there" --- X-files
  6. Standard member shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    24 Oct '10 08:20
    Nothing noone didn't know or suspect already.
  7. 25 Oct '10 15:00
    This is not surprising news to anyone not predisposed to call President Bush a liar about WMD.


    There were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after all.
    The massive cache of almost 400,000 Iraq war documents released by the WikiLeaks Web site revealed that small amounts of chemical weapons were found in Iraq and continued to surface for years after the 2003 US invasion, Wired magazine reported.
    The documents showed that US troops continued to find chemical weapons and labs for years after the invasion, including remnants of Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons arsenal -- most of which had been destroyed following the Gulf War.
    In August 2004, American troops were able to buy containers from locals of what they thought was liquid sulfur mustard, a blister agent, the documents revealed. The chemicals were triple-sealed and taken to a secure site.
    Also in 2004, troops discovered a chemical lab in a house in Fallujah during a battle with insurgents. A chemical cache was also found in the city.


    Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/us_did_find_iraq_wmd_AYiLgNbw7pDf7AZ3RO9qnM#ixzz13NnIxLMq
    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/10/wikileaks_proves_wmd_found_in.html
  8. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    25 Oct '10 15:07
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    [b]This is not surprising news to anyone not predisposed to call President Bush a liar about WMD.


    There were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after all.
    The massive cache of almost 400,000 Iraq war documents released by the WikiLeaks Web site revealed that small amounts of chemical weapons were found in Iraq and continued to surfac ...[text shortened]... M#ixzz13NnIxLMq
    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/10/wikileaks_proves_wmd_found_in.html[/b]
    It's clear that Iraq had WMDs at one point, as Saddam used them against the Kurds.

    The question was whether Saddam was developing and producing them on a scale in 2002 and 2003 that would justify an invasion.

    Although we'll never really know for sure what level they were seeking to produce them at the time, the Bush administration clearly has not met its burden to prove its pre-war WMD allegations. Whether it was intentional lies, exaggerations or mistakes is an interesting academic debate, but the fact is, in retrospect, that most of the pre-war allegations have not been proven.
  9. 25 Oct '10 15:18
    Originally posted by sh76
    It's clear that Iraq had WMDs at one point, as Saddam used them against the Kurds.

    The question was whether Saddam was developing and producing them on a scale in 2002 and 2003 that would justify an invasion.

    Although we'll never really know for sure what level they were seeking to produce them at the time, the Bush administration clearly has not met its ...[text shortened]... te, but the fact is, in retrospect, that most of the pre-war allegations have not been proven.
    I have not heard that argument before. All I ever hear is "NONE were found.There were NO WMD. Therefore Bush is a liar."

    This shows WMD were found.

    Now, can we prove he was making them between 2002-2003? That would be pretty hard to do.
  10. Subscriber Proper Knob
    Cornovii
    25 Oct '10 17:39
    Originally posted by sh76
    It's clear that Iraq had WMDs at one point, as Saddam used them against the Kurds.

    The question was whether Saddam was developing and producing them on a scale in 2002 and 2003 that would justify an invasion.

    Although we'll never really know for sure what level they were seeking to produce them at the time, the Bush administration clearly has not met its ...[text shortened]... te, but the fact is, in retrospect, that most of the pre-war allegations have not been proven.
    It's clear that Iraq had WMDs at one point, as Saddam used them against the Kurds.

    We (as in Britain and the US) also sold them to him up until 1992. That's why we were so damn sure they existed. We knew what he had as it was all tallied up on the receipt.
  11. 25 Oct '10 18:00
    The UN was saying that he had the weapons as well. Saddam would not let the inspectors inspect as was the agreement of the cease fire of the first gulf war. Saddam and his 2 a-hole sons were 100% at fault for the Iraq war.

    Saddam should have said "yes I have the stash of chemical weapons you sold to me...and they are located at xxx. " "Yes please come in and inspect as you like."
  12. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    25 Oct '10 19:09
    Originally posted by highdraw
    The UN was saying that he had the weapons as well. Saddam would not let the inspectors inspect as was the agreement of the cease fire of the first gulf war. Saddam and his 2 a-hole sons were 100% at fault for the Iraq war.

    Saddam should have said "yes I have the stash of chemical weapons you sold to me...and they are located at xxx. " "Yes please come in and inspect as you like."
    The inspectors were working in Iraq until the US made it clear that an attack on that country was imminent. Bush refused to give them the time they requested. Right wingers conveniently "forget" this.
  13. 25 Oct '10 19:28
    No thats not true. The inspectors were not given the access that they required. I'm not sure I qualify as a right winger...but if agreeing with the invasion of a country to usurp a dictator that murders his people....lets his sons rape woman and take out their sick sadistic behaviors on human people...then yes right winger i am.
  14. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    25 Oct '10 19:33 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by highdraw
    No thats not true. The inspectors were not given the access that they required. I'm not sure I qualify as a right winger...but if agreeing with the invasion of a country to usurp a dictator that murders his people....lets his sons rape woman and take out their sick sadistic behaviors on human people...then yes right winger i am.
    You're either misinformed or a liar. Hans Blix, the head of the inspectors, said this:

    He said it was odd that he UK and the US declared that Saddam was refusing to cooperate with the inspectors when his team was saying the opposite. "I thought it was, both then and in retrospect, a bit curious that precisely at the time when we were going upward in evidencing cooperation, at that very time the conclusion from the UK side and also from the US side was that, 'no, inspections are useless, they don't lead us anywhere'."

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/blog/2010/jul/27/hans-blix-iraq-inquiry-live
  15. 26 Oct '10 11:40
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    You're either misinformed or a liar. Hans Blix, the head of the inspectors, said this:

    He said it was odd that he UK and the US declared that Saddam was refusing to cooperate with the inspectors when his team was saying the opposite. "I thought it was, both then and in retrospect, a bit curious that precisely at the time when we were going upward in ...[text shortened]... s anywhere'."

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/blog/2010/jul/27/hans-blix-iraq-inquiry-live
    ...Sorry I side with the US and UK. We are at an Impasse.

    I believe Hans Bliix must have misunderstood the mandate that Saddam capitulate to the will of the nations that allowed him to retain his place after he illegally had invaded Kuwait just a few short years prior.

    Unless I misunderstand...you believe that Saddam should have remained in power?