Weapons Found?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]vroom wrote:
What provoked my response to your first blatherings was their disregard of the law of the global community. It didn’t seem to mean much to you at the beginning of this thread, when the state succor of the likes of convicted murderer Abu Nidal in Iraq might fall within the rights of a country’s sovreignty.

Brian, perhaps you missed the part where I stated that such actions would certainly have a weight in the decision making process?
[/quote]
Oh, you must think that was implied when you said it was “a tricky issue,” (since “there are “bad guys” in the US from time to time for various purposes whether or not the government is aware of it.”)

[quote]However, I’m not sure harboring Abu Nidal is justification for full scale invasion and regime toppling. Perhaps you are.
[/quote]

You’re being silly. I mention the harboring of Abu Nidal to expose what I see as your ignorance (“but was it complicit support?”) and relativism. I did not submit the refusal to extradict a global criminal as justificiation for ANY military action.

However, the willingness to aid and abet future terrorism is another matter, particularly when it might be on a grand scale(best example, the Taliban). And if Security Council armistice resolutions forbid a country from aiding and abetting such convicted criminals, then harboring convicted terrorists is a violation of the armistice. BTW, I don’t think this was specified in the armistice arranged with Iraq.

And what was your opinion about the (in)signficance of 1441 again? I missed that.

22

It’s interesting how this whole thing breaks down:

Liberal is anti and conservative is pro- but that’s not exactly the case. The New Republic came out for the war, and many paleo cons are anti. I think that more than a few libs are anti war as a side effect of hating Bush.

RSU- “…we should have been on the motherfucker…”- by all means yes. However, that is much easier said then done. There are about 40,000 commercial flights a day, and on that day 10 were targeted for hijacking. Add in all of the other intelligence coming in. How were we suppposed to seperate the signal from the noise at that time? Hindsight makes it look a lot easier than it was.

Vroom- I think that you raise some interesting points about preemption. It is dicey indeed, but then again, waiting, in essence for something to happen and react may be worse. As far as some of the countries that you mention, I think that if they thought they could take any territory without too much trouble (say China, for instance), they would use preemption as an excuse.

Zep- from a conventional military standpoint Iraq was a joke. But that does not follow that they posed no threat to our territory or interests by unconventional means. Saddam, according to Clinton, tried to assasinate an ex-President of the USA.
Kuwait still feared Saddam, who with 35% of his earlier forces could have recaptured the “19th Province” without US protection. The House of Saud was a little antsy too, and probably is not unhappy with his departure, although they now have bigger worries at home.

Is there any doubt that Saddam had:

-stockpiled and used chemical weapons
-sought to develop further chemical and biological weapons.
-started a war with Iran
-invaded and brutalized Kuwait
-sought and accquired nuclear technology (from France, no less-imagine!) while sitting on the world’s second largest proven reserves (why, one may ask)
-paid the families of Palistinian bombers and harbored known terrorists (he at least one of them killed, so he must have known he was in Bagdad.)
-resented the US over Kuwait (hence the attempt on Bush41.

It is so hard to imagine that an absolutely ruthless regional bully sitting on a oil field and given billions in loans could not pose a threat somehow? Does working with suicidal religious fanatics not make sense? Is it not better to direct them away from you to the great Satan on whom you want revenge than have them nipping at your heels? Like the dead are going to talk. Like you have the conventional means to hit the US anyway.

For what its worth- I think Saddam’s strategy was to disperse and wait. The Oil for Food Program was consolidating his hold on power at home (who was distributing the food anyway?), and abroad, democracies to grow weary of distant entanglements and tend to drop them after decent intervals. They also contain business interests that lobby for business opportunities. The trick was to wear them down and watch them go. Then reassembling the components of WMD production and delivery could begin, and by the time that anyone bothered to revisit the problem and actually do something about it, it would be too late. In the meantime if you can strike by proxy, well, why not?
Problem for him was that he miscalculated our reaction to 9/11 by our lack of reaction to earlier terrorist strikes.
The fact that Saddam refused to comply with UN resolutions creates uncertainty, and thus fear that he may still have a card up his sleeve.

I don’t think that this is a far-fetched reading of the situation. I don’t think that we have any solid proof of it either. I do think that some evidence points to it. Whether it is or was enough to go to war on is why Dubbya gets to ride around in a lavishly appointed 747 and take all the flack.

23

Oh, you must think that was implied when you said it was “a tricky issue,” (since “there are “bad guys” in the US from time to time for various purposes whether or not the government is aware of it.”)

Oops, yeah, I scrolled up after posting. It was implied when I said harboring someone would piss people off. I guess you want me to say it justifies something outright?

You are the one making wild assumptions concerning my use of the phrase “bad guys in the US”. I did not say that this was a similar situation. And it isn’t tricky in the way you are trying to interpret it. It’s tricky due to how it can be misused or abused in the future.

However, in a sovereignty situation between say hypothetical countries Irack and Waitku, do you think it would have been hard for Irack to drum up “proof” that Waitku was harboring some enemies of Irack? Complicit or not wouldn’t matter in the propaganda used to justify invasion.

Once again, it’s not the current situation that I’m really worried about, its the countries I don’t trust that can use the same logic in the future.

As for 1441, it wasn’t part of the original question, so, I’ve ignored it so far. The UN is something that is used when it agrees with a country and ignored when it doesn’t… the major powers in particular are not willing to be bound to its decisions.

24

[quote]vroom wrote:
Brian, if you didn’t notice I really didn’t express an opinion. I merely showed the basis for some opposing viewpoints.

[/quote]

No, I’m sorry - this whole opposing viewpoints thing is unacceptable you traitor!

25

-stockpiled and used chemical weapons

Of course we know that he stockpiled them… Who do you think gave them to him? Interestingly enough, even after he used the weapons we gave him on the Kurds and even after we were fully aware that he was harboring Abu Nidal, we (US government and US and British oil companies) continued to do business with him.

-sought to develop further chemical and biological weapons.

Dang it… Every time we place a dictator in power then always backfire on us!

-started a war with Iran

At our behest. We gave him billions of dollars, weapons, and chemical weapons.

-invaded and brutalized Kuwait

Actually, they weren’t really there long enough to brutalize Kuwait. After the Iran/Iraq war ended in 1988 Iraq was bankrupt and their infrastructure was in chaos. Kuwait flooded the oil market, and undercut Iraq’s recovery. Saddam informed the US that it was thinking about invading Kuwait, to which Secretary Baker’s resonse was a green light. Of course, we know what happened after that.

-sought and accquired nuclear technology (from France, no less-imagine!) while sitting on the world’s second largest proven reserves (why, one may ask)

They weren’t just sitting on it… Kellog Brown and Root continued to do business illegally with Iraq. What were they doing? Comparing needlepoint? Interesting about France… I didn’t know about that. When did they acquire this technology?

-paid the families of Palistinian bombers and harbored known terrorists (he at least one of them killed, so he must have known he was in Bagdad.)

This didn’t stop us from doing business with him, as I have stated.

-resented the US over Kuwait (hence the attempt on Bush41.

Duh! We put him in power, led him into a war that bankrupted his country, supported him through his reign of terror on his own people, gave him the green light to attack Kuwait then renegged and kicked his Army’s ass, then placed sanctions (which were ignored by Halliburton) on them that made living conditions there quite horrendous (unless you were a dictator with palaces all over the country). He was a real catch, that one. Why can’t our government learn our lesson and quit putting dictators in power? We have done it so many times, and it has failed every time – well, that we know of. I guess we only find out about these things after they blow up, so there may be successful brutal dictatorships that we have created out there.

To further this line of thinking, why do we continue to be so close with Saudi Arabia? They have a similar track record to Iraq when it comes to human rights. Maybe we should have attacked them instead of Iraq, since most of the terrorists who attacked on 911 were Saudi nationals.

26

This article seems relevant. Check it out.

CIA Kept WMD Info From Bush

July 6, 2004

“I genuinely believe that those stockpiles of weapons were there.”
Prime Minister Tony Blair

(CBS/AP) Before the invasion of Iraq, the CIA learned from Iraqi scientists’ relatives that the country’s weapons of mass destruction programs had ended. But the agency did not pass that information to President Bush as he made the case for war, a newspaper reports.

That revelation is one of several contained in a report from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, according to The New York Times. The committee’s report, due out this week, reflects the first part of its inquiry into apparent intelligence failures in Iraq.

Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction comprised the Bush administration’s leading rationale for the March 2003 invasion.

Evidence uncovered by the Iraq Survey Group suggests Iraq may have maintained some capacity for biological weapons research and conducted illegal design work on missiles with ranges in excess of United Nations restrictions. Polish troops recently found several artillery shells filled with sarin or mustard gas.

But those shells dated from Iraq’s eight-year war with Iran. No evidence of large stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons has surfaced. Mobile trailers that were suspected of being weapons factories turned out not to be. And Iraq’s alleged nuclear weapons program was apparently dormant.

David Kay, the first head of the U.S. unit hunting for illegal weapons, resigned earlier this year saying the prewar intelligence was “almost all wrong.”

As concern has mounted over the lack of illegal weapons in Iraq, a key question has been whether U.S. intelligence misjudged Iraq’s capabilities, or Bush administration officials misstated what the intelligence showed.

Outgoing CIA director George Tenet has said his analysts “never said there was an ‘imminent threat.’” Administration officials, including the president, accused Iraq of trying to buy uranium from Niger despite warnings from the CIA that the claim was doubtful. And published CIA reports, like the crucial October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate of Iraq’s capabilities, contained qualifications and caveats that administration officials rarely acknowledged.

But Bob Woodward’s book “Plan of Attack” quotes Tenet telling a skeptical Mr. Bush that the intelligence on Iraq was “a slam dunk,” and the Senate report apparently also will put the blame on the intelligence agency.

The report finds problems in the collection of intelligence and the way that intelligence was reported. In once case, The Times reports, a defector who reportedly said there was a biological weapons program actually said he knew of no such program.

The Senate report concludes that CIA analysts were under no political pressure to skew their reports, The Times says.

The CIA downplayed the significance of the relatives’ claims.

Meanwhile, Prime Minister Tony Blair said Tuesday that Saddam Hussein’s illicit weapons of mass destruction may never be found in Iraq, but insisted the dictator had posed a threat to the world.

“I have to accept that we have not found them, that we may not find them,” Blair told a committee of lawmakers Tuesday. “We do not know what has happened to them. They could have been removed, they could have been hidden, they could have been destroyed.”

Blair rejected any suggestion that the stockpiles never existed and that Saddam had not been a danger to the world.

“To go to the opposite extreme and say therefore no threat existed from Saddam Hussein would be a mistake,” he told the House of Commons Liaison Committee.

He said the survey group had already shown that Saddam had the “strategic capability, the intent and was in multiple breaches of the United Nations resolutions.”

“I genuinely believe that those stockpiles of weapons were there,” Blair added.

In September 2002, Blair’s government published a dossier of intelligence about Iraq. At the time, Blair told the Commons that Saddam’s “weapons of mass destruction program is active, detailed and growing.” Blair said some of Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons “could be activated within 45 minutes.”

Even after no weapons were found during the war, Blair insisted they would be found. A year ago, he told one critic the search was continuing, and results would be published. “I think that when we do so, the honorable gentleman and others will be eating some of their words,” he said in Commons.

Serious questions have been asked about the quality of Britain’s prewar intelligence on Iraqi weapons. An inquiry, instigated by the government, will publish its report on July 14.

27

Going back to the original post, I’ll believe WMDs are found when we find them. I think there is a high probability we’ll find something, but it’s difficult to ascertain whether materials found from here on out are original stockpiles or are new materials brought in by terror elements joining the war against the US.

And - it doesn’t matter. The issue always was noncompliance. Allowing Saddam to play catch-me-if-you-can with hapless UN flunkies was a risk we were unwilling to take. Did Saddam have them? Or didn’t he? Doesn’t matter - Saddam bluffed, we called.

The US has been to war when there was no conceivable national interest at stake - just a willingness to help some oppressed folk out. Those actions were met with relatively appreciation. The US does the same in Iraq and also had a perfectly good case for doing in the name of national interest.

WMDs may or may not be found - but the number one weapon of mass destruction, responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands, is on trial in Iraq as we speak. Mission accomplished.

28

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
DarkAngel: First off the WTC disaster was carried out by Saudi’s who didn’t use WMD’s and who coincidently had no connection to Hussein. No one in the whole world - outside the U.S. - believed that Iraq was a threat to them let alone our country. If you take the time to read foreign news sources you can find this out. In addition Iraq’s forces were about 35% of what they were during the first Gulf War when he didn’t stand a chance against us back then so I stand by my original post. [/quote]

Actually Zeppelin,

Various other nations viewed Saddam as a threat. I think we can all agree that the Kuwatis and Iranians had some reasons to do so, and the Saudis and Turks didn’t exactly trust him either. I don’t think I have to bother pointing out Israel, but I will anyway. This isn’t to say that all the countries above viewed U.S. invasion of Iraq as a good alternative, but to say no other countries viewed Saddam as a threat is simply incorrect.

Now, as to whether the Iraqis posed a threat to the U.S., I suppose you’ve already made your mind up on that, but keep in mind that the Russians had intelligence that Saddam was actively planning terror attacks against the U.S., and the Iraqis were harboring terrorists (non-al Queda) [Note to RSU: They were in the country with the knowledge, acquiescence and support of the government – until the government decided it didn’t like them anymore, as it sometimes did, and then the government shot the terrorists in the head multiple times and claimed it was a suicide (can’t remember the name of that particular terrorist at the moment)]. This can be added to the Czech intelligence and other intelligence on Iraqi “contacts” with al Queda, which you can discount to your heart’s content. However, in a post-9/11 world, when we have much evidence of state-sponsored terrorism, I think that reasonable people can view that as a threat.

29

Roy:

I’ve been following this story. I find it highly troubling – you can also look to the Senate Committee on Intelligence is going to release a report on this, and it basically is holding there was a world-wide intelligence failure on the WMD issue.

I find it troubling that the CIA is acting as a lobbying unit for an outcome rather than simply analyzing and presenting data. It is highly troubling that the CIA deliberately left out data, if that’s indeed the case.

However, I do want to point out that this puts a different spin on the Bush Administration decision. It basically had the CIA arguing strenuously that Saddam had WMD, and was not getting counterbalancing information from other countries’ intelligence. There were other departments taking contrary views, but apparently the CIA was persuasive enough even to convince Colin Powell, who had been an opponent of acting in Iraq.

The question is, given information about Iraqi terror activities, Iraqi non-compliance with inspections and warnings, and general belief concerning possession of WMD, what should the Bush Administration have done? I think they acted correctly, given the information at hand. You may differ, but you should consider the action taken under the lens of what was known at the time.

30

Roy- you must be very flexible as you can stretch very, very well. By your reckoning, we won’t get to the bottom of this until we find the puppet strings used by various (Republican) presidents.

I think that the It’s All America’s Fault line of attack stretchs beyond the breaking point.

Manufacturing some types of chemical weapons isn’t all that hard. The Iraqi could have done it all by themselves, or bought the pre-cursors from any variety of sources.

Somehow it is possible that Saddam could have risen through the ranks of the Baath Party and deposed a weak royal all by himself.

Most, in fact almost all, of the weapons that the Iraqi armed forces had were of Soviet or French design. Or take my by my dainty little hand and show me please, where the United States of America manufactures T-54s, T-55s, T-62s, T-72s, Mig-21s, Mig-23s, AK-47s, and all the other stuff you see destroyed on TV. Why do you think the French and the Russians were owed so much money anyway? Gold plumbing fixtures aren’t cheap, but dictators don’t need billions and billions in loans to pay for them.

You obviously know as much about economics in general and world oil markets in particular as you do about the origins of military equipment. Kuwait does not have the capacity to flood the world market for oil. The Saudis do, to some extent.

I don’t know if your copious gray matter can remember back to 1981, but back then in the olden days, the Israelis bombed a nuclear reactor (where?) supplied by the French. Double Duh!

The Saudis, of course, aren’t exactly sticklers for human rights. But I don’t think that they have hundreds of grave sites containing hundreds of thousands, perhaps more than a million, bodies, many tortured and mutilated.

So you don’t dispute any of the essentials of the argument- that Saddam’s past behavior would given the reasonable analyst ground for predicting a high chance of mischief from Iraq?

Being that you are The Omniscient One, the casual reader would suspect that you knew the context of American behavior in the Middle East. That you knew all about the containment strategy against the socialist worker’s paradise known as the (extremely benign) Soviet Union, with their free, high-quality health care and abundant, low-cost, comfortable housing and respect for minorities within their borders and warm cuddly bear hug for those beyond them (ask the Poles, Finns, Chechs,etc, etc,etc.). You were better aquainted with the geopolitical significance of the region and the shabby options the United States was faced with than the back of your hand. You knew too of the collapse of the Soviet Union, how that changed things, and how a country such as ours, distant and slow to digest and react, would handle the situation. Right.

Exactly what was the context of the post anyway? All you do is attach the names of the Left’s usual suspects to events you don’t dispute, or things you exaggerate, or things you make up. Are you saying that because we made mistakes earlier the United States should just stick our heads in the sand, or bow before Osama and Friends and say thank you sir, may I have another?

Actually, I think that almost your entire post is BS. Your ignorance of Saddams weapons and your comment on the flooding of the oil market are laughable. I’ve read elsewhere on your allegations about cooperation with Saddam and you take a grain of truth and stretch it way beyond its credible limits.

Your whole post looks like an attempt to justify an emotion (America Hurts the little guy!) with a wild imagination processed with juvenile reasoning.

Or maybe I’m just another non-leftist delluded by the Man and not privy to the sublime insights of the Anointed Few, or One in your case.

31

Vroom- this is off-topic, however, you wrote:
My opinion is that religion and religious differences have been the casue of more suffering and evil just about anything else?

Would you consider Communism a form of religious belief, or was it that anything else, or not as bad?

32

No, I don’t consider communism a religion. Communism is a relative newcomer to the world of strife we live in.

While we had fifty or sixty years of world tension, I don’t think it begins to compare to the wars, crusades and persecution that religion has justified for millenia.

Funny, it seems that all religions preach peace, but everybody claims God is on their side when it is time to go to war and kill an enemy.

Anything that gives other people control over you or that stops you from thinking for yourself is suspect in my opinion. Why would God give you a brain if you weren’t supposed to use it to think for yourself?

You do realize the war over terrorism is really a war against a fanatic interpretation of an otherwise peaceful religion which is used to motivate people to die for some stupid cause?

Bush of course claims God’s favor as well. Which particular religion is he again?

Anyway, yeah, probably all off topic, but don’t you imagine that having everyone claiming God’s favor over the past millenia surely means they won’t have it?

33

Farther off topic- Or that none will?
My take- although not trained or that well read on the subject, I think that Communism has aspects of religion- the whole Lenin’s tomb thing- an attempt at deification?

As far as the carnage- the Commies got tens of millions of dead to answer for. I don’t know who compares to that, as a portion of population and duration of damage inflicted.

Additionally, I think that the texts many religions are founded on warn against the very behavior later self-proclaimed true believers engage in- in the name of that faith. Human nature can be a bitch.