Jump to content
Clubplanet Nightlife Community
Sign in to follow this  
igloo

Iraqi Colonel: WMD Could've Been Launched in 45 Minutes

Recommended Posts

But where are they?

Iraqi Colonel: WMD Could've Been Launched in 45 Minutes

Sunday, December 07, 2003

Saddam Hussein (search) had weapons of mass destruction and his army was capable of firing them off in less than 45 minutes, according to an Iraqi colonel's statements in the London Telegraph.

According to Lt. Col. al-Dabbagh, cases of WMD warheads were shipped under cover of darkness to front-line units, including his own, near the end 2002, the Telegraph reported Sunday.

In September of 2002 the British government published a controversial intelligence report on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, claiming WMD could be launched within 45 minutes. Al-Dabbagh said he believed he was the source of the claim, which was widely criticized as being a ploy by British Prime Minister Tony Blair (search) to gain support for military action in Iraq (search).

"I am the one responsible for providing this information," al-Dabbagh, 40, told the Telegraph when shown the dossier. "It is 100 percent accurate."

"Forget 45 minutes, we could have fired these within half-an-hour," he was quoted as saying.

Al-Dabbagh told the paper that the weapons were Iraqi-manufactured and were designed to be launched from hand-held rocket-propelled grenades. Whether the weapons contained biological or chemical agents was not made clear by al-Dabbagh, the report said.

Iraqi military commanders could use the weapons only on the personal orders of Saddam, al-Dabbagh told the paper, adding: "We were told that when the war came we would only have a short time to use everything we had to defend ourselves, including the secret weapon."

So why weren't the weapons launched against the allied forces encroaching on Iraq? Al-Dabbagh said the majority of the Iraqi army did not want to fight for Saddam.

"The West should thank God that the Iraqi army decided not to fight," he told the paper. "If the army had fought for Saddam Hussein and used these weapons there would have been terrible consequences."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes they decided not to fight and become enslaved........:aright:

does Al-Dabbagh mean FICTIONAL SOURCE in urdu??

i highly doubt Iraqi soldiers wouldnt pull the trigger on WMD's due to their integrity..or the fact that they wont be able to sleep at night...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by ghhhhhost

yes they decided not to fight and become enslaved........:aright:

does Al-Dabbagh mean FICTIONAL SOURCE in urdu??

i highly doubt Iraqi soldiers wouldnt pull the trigger on WMD's due to their integrity..or the fact that they wont be able to sleep at night...

How about total annihilation? This is coming from a Iraqi general what more do you need?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again, these morons are exposed as nothing but hypocritical blowhards....

They believe every conspiracy theory thrown around as long as it has to do with some evil plan by the U.S. or Bush, or some absurd bullshit promoted by anti-American assholes.............but as soon as something is offered that differs from their pathetic thinking and unrealistic world, they quickly diminish it without even giving it the slightest bit of thought (if they are capable of significant thought that is...which the data suggests otherwise)...

And once again, the suckers are exposed easily and as planned........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by igloo

Once again, these morons are exposed as nothing but hypocritical blowhards....

They believe every conspiracy theory thrown around as long as it has to do with some evil plan by the U.S. or Bush, or some absurd bullshit promoted by anti-American assholes.............but as soon as something is offered that differs from their pathetic thinking and unrealistic world, they quickly diminish it without even giving it the slightest bit of thought (if they are capable of significant thought that is...which the data suggests otherwise)...

And once again, the suckers are exposed easily and as planned........

It's amazing what more do these loons need a gift wrapped scud full of SADAM'S goodies sent to the NY TIMES???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by raver_mania

Does not seem very credible - the article does not even attempt to address the key question - if "cases and cases" were shipped to the front lines, where are they now?

I agree...that is why at the beginning of the article I wrote.."where are they then?....

But my point is more credibility is given to the most absurd, unrealistic ideas and conspiracy theories by the left, Bush haters, and the anti-American brigade than something that is offered that can possibly have believability.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the fact that saddam didn't use these hypothetical wmd proves to me that he doesn't have them. if he is truly as ruthless as to execute his own people and stuff them into mass graves just for dissenting, i am more than sure he wouldn't hesitate to use them on our own troops which had come to take him out of power, in fact the reasons he executed people was because they were a threat to his strangle hold on power. logic dictates that he would've used them had he had wmd at the time of the invasion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by xpyrate

the fact that saddam didn't use these hypothetical wmd proves to me that he doesn't have them. if he is truly as ruthless as to execute his own people and stuff them into mass graves just for dissenting, i am more than sure he wouldn't hesitate to use them on our own troops which had come to take him out of power, in fact the reasons he executed people was because they were a threat to his strangle hold on power. logic dictates that he would've used them had he had wmd at the time of the invasion.

Son, you have to stop talking about things you have no clue about....you really do...

Logic is never something you should try.......Lego perhaps or maybe Beach Barbie, but not logic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...and if it's igloo invading my house I will be throwing bullets.............

from an ak47, modified.

and Igloo, please continue to show your childish behavior with your immature retorts. It makes xpyrates points even stronger. ;)

FASCIST!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by normalnoises

...and if it's igloo invading my house I will be throwing bullets.............

from an ak47, modified.

i doubt ur skinny tofu eating ass, can even fire off ONE accurate shot with AK-47...maybe a .22 is more up ur alley Rambo...:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by ghhhhhost

all im saying is...if they were capable of doing it..why didnt they do it? if someone is invading my house..im throwin everything at u...from bullets to fuckin refrigerators...

Were they capable of launching a WMD attack in the first Gulf War?......Did they do it?.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by igloo

Were they capable of launching a WMD attack in the first Gulf War?......Did they do it?.....

Don't waste your time bud these idiots are stuck in the concrete operational stage of development, they can't think hypothetical enough to imagine that Sadam wouldn't use the WMD 's because then in the Arab worlds view he really did have them and it was just to remove him... They can't fathom that maybe the Iraqi army were so discombobulated from the half ass orders they were recieving from those 2 goons Uday and Qusay, I mean doesn't it say they were restricted unless the order came from Sadam himself? Here's another thought, like I stated before..

Maybe the army was just AFRAID to use WMD's...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by mr mahs

Don't waste your time bud these idiots are stuck in the concrete operational stage of development, they can't think hypothetical enough to imagine that Sadam wouldn't use the WMD 's because then in the Arab worlds view he really did have them and it was just to remove him... They can't fathom that maybe the Iraqi army were so discombobulated from the half ass orders they were recieving from those 2 goons Uday and Qusay, I mean doesn't it say they were restricted unless the order came from Sadam himself? Here's another thought, like I stated before..

Maybe the army was just AFRAID to use WMD's...

Like I have said before, it is amazing that they support every absurd, unrealistic idea in creation, as long as it has something to do with Bad Boy Bush or the evil American govt...and use their fuzzy logic to support the unsupportable...

But when it is the other way around, it is amazing that they lose the power to apply their "selective" logic...

They just get continually exposed as hypocritical blowhards who have a false sense of purpose by being critical of the U.S. (irrespective of foundation) cloaked in the protection of "patriotism". (for marksimon, simply anti-American)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by igloo

Were they capable of launching a WMD attack in the first Gulf War?......Did they do it?.....

Little different situation. The first Iraqi war our stated goal was to take Iraq only out of Kuwait and Saddam assumed we would stop their which we did as well as a threat from Nuclear retaliation which added the deterrent. Iraqi freedom's clear goal was to oust Saddam. The threat of Nukes was obviously still their yet in this round it was all or nothing what did he have to lose by using them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by seximofo2k

Little different situation. The first Iraqi war our stated goal was to take Iraq only out of Kuwait and Saddam assumed we would stop their which we did as well as a threat from Nuclear retaliation which added the deterrent. Iraqi freedom's clear goal was to oust Saddam. The threat of Nukes was obviously still their yet in this round it was all or nothing what did he have to lose by using them?

What did WHO have to lose by using them...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WMD is a shit term.

with regards to nuclear weapons in Iraq.

THEY DIDN'T EVER HAVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS. EVER!

let's just clear that one up.

with regards to chemical weapons, yeah, they probably did have some at the time, but bear stuff like this in mind.

they used them against the kurds, and against the iranians.

however, I believe when they made these attacks they had satellite data from the US to help them, because, at this time saddam was one of 'our' despots.

the amount of knowledge shown by people on this subject, both sides of the debate is starting to scare me...

one historical annecdote which might be telling is that apparently washington gave the nod to saddam to invade kuiwiat, not overtly, but as these things are done in diplomatic circles.

go on, hit him, *hits him*, right you bastard you hit him, get him!

you see...

Saddam was once given lists of communist dissident types by the CIA, wonder what happend to them!

iraq was armed by the west, just like many other despots.

remember, Bush Sr encouraged the Iraqi people to rise up, and then promptly left them pissing in the wind.

this helped fill some of the mass graves which people have cited as 'evidence' that this war/occupation/theft/liberation/triumph of democracy is justified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×