Blackleaf Posted May 11, 2004 Report Share Posted May 11, 2004 American kid asks daddy ... Q: Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq? A: Because they had weapons of mass destruction, honey. Q: But the inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction. A: That's because the Iraqis were hiding them. Q: And that's why we invaded Iraq? A: Yep. Invasions always work better than inspections. Q: But after we invaded them, we STILL didn't find any weapons of mass destruction, did we? A: That's because the weapons are so well hidden. Don't worry, we'll find something, probably right before the 2004 election. Q: Why did Iraq want all those weapons of mass destruction? A: To use them in a war, silly. Q: I'm confused. If they had all those weapons that they planned to use in a war, then why didn't they use any of those weapons when we went to war with them? A: Well, obviously they didn't want anyone to know they had those weapons so they chose to die by the thousands rather than defend themselves. Q: That doesn't make sense Daddy. Why would they choose to die if they had all those big weapons to fight us back with? A: It's a different culture. It's not supposed to make sense. Q: I don't know about you, but I don't think they had any of those weapons our government said they did. A: Well, you know, it doesn't matter whether or not they had those weapons. We had another good reason to invade them anyway. Q: And what was that? A: Even if Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator, which is another good reason to invade another country. Q: Why? What does a cruel dictator do that makes it OK to invade his country? A: Well, for one thing, he tortured his own people. Q: Kind of like what they do in China? A: Don't go comparing China to Iraq. China is a good economic competitor, where millions of people work for slave wages in sweatshops to make U.S. corporations richer. Q: So if a country lets its people be exploited for American corporate gain, it's a good country, even if that country tortures people? A: Right. Q: Why were people in Iraq being tortured? A: For political crimes, mostly, like criticizing the government. People who criticized the government in Iraq were sent to prison and tortured. Q: Isn't that exactly what happens in China? A: I told you, China is different. Q: What's the difference between China and Iraq? A: Well, for one thing, Iraq was ruled by the Ba'ath party, while China is Communist. Q: Didn't you once tell me Communists were bad? A: No, just Cuban Communists are bad. Q: How are the Cuban Communists bad? A: Well, for one thing, people who criticize the government in Cuba are sent to prison and tortured. Q: Like in Iraq? A: Exactly. Q: And like in China, too? A: I told you, China's a good economic competitor. Cuba, on the other hand, is not. Q: How come Cuba isn't a good economic competitor? A: Well, you see, back in the early 1960s, our government passed some laws that made it illegal for Americans to trade or do any business with Cuba until they stopped being Communists and started being capitalists like us. Q: But if we got rid of those laws, opened up trade with Cuba, and started doing business with them, wouldn't that help the Cubans become capitalists? A: Don't be a smart-***. Q: I didn't think I was being one. A: Well, anyway, they also don't have freedom of religion in Cuba. Q: Kind of like China and the Falun Gong movement? A: I told you, stop saying bad things about China. Anyway, Saddam Hussein came to power through a military coup, so he's not really a legitimate leader anyway. Q: What's a military coup? A: That's when a military general takes over the government of a country by force, instead of holding free elections like we do in the United States. Q: Didn't the ruler of Pakistan come to power by a military coup? A: You mean General Pervez Musharraf? Uh, yeah, he did, but Pakistan is our friend. Q: Why is Pakistan our friend if their leader is illegitimate? A: I never said Pervez Musharraf was illegitimate. Q: Didn't you just say a military general who comes to power by forcibly overthrowing the legitimate government of a nation is an illegitimate leader? A: Only Saddam Hussein. Pervez Musharraf is our friend, because he helped us invade Afghanistan. Q: Why did we invade Afghanistan? A: Because of what they did to us on September 11th. Q: What did Afghanistan do to us on September 11th? A: Well, on September 11th, nineteen men, fifteen of them Saudi Arabians hijacked four airplanes and flew three of them into buildings, killing over 3,000 Americans. Q: So how did Afghanistan figure into all that? A: Afghanistan was where those bad men trained, under the oppressive rule of the Taliban. Q: Aren't the Taliban those bad radical Islamics who chopped off people's heads and hands? A: Yes, that's exactly who they were. Not only did they chop off people's heads and hands, but they oppressed women, too. Q: Didn't the Bush administration give the Taliban 43 million dollars back in May of 2001? A: Yes, but that money was a reward because they did such a good job fighting drugs. Q: Fighting drugs? A: Yes, the Taliban were very helpful in stopping people from growing opium poppies. Q: How did they do such a good job? A: Simple. If people were caught growing opium poppies, the Taliban would have their hands and heads cut off. Q: So, when the Taliban cut off people's heads and hands for growing flowers, that was OK, but not if they cut people's heads and hands off for other reasons? A: Yes. It's OK with us if radical Islamic fundamentalists cut off people's hands for growing flowers, but it's cruel if they cut off people's hands for stealing bread. Q: Don't they also cut off people's hands and heads in Saudi Arabia? A: That's different. Afghanistan was ruled by a tyrannical patriarchy that oppressed women and forced them to wear burqas whenever they were in public, with death by stoning as the penalty for women who did not comply. Q: Don't Saudi women have to wear burqas in public, too? A: No, Saudi women merely wear a traditional Islamic body covering. Q: What's the difference? A: The traditional Islamic covering worn by Saudi women is a modest yet fashionable garment that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers. The burqa, on the other hand, is an evil tool of patriarchal oppression that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers. Q: It sounds like the same thing with a different name. A: Now, don't go comparing Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are our friends. Q: But I thought you said 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11th were from Saudi Arabia. A: Yes, but they trained in Afghanistan. Q: Who trained them? A: A very bad man named Osama bin Laden. Q: Was he from Afghanistan? A: Uh, no, he was from Saudi Arabia too. But he was a bad man, a very bad man. Q: I seem to recall he was our friend once. A: Only when we helped him and the mujahadeen repel the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan back in the 1980s. Q: Who are the Soviets? Was that the Evil Communist Empire Ronald Reagan talked about? A: There are no more Soviets. The Soviet Union broke up in 1990 or thereabouts, and now they have elections and capitalism like us. We call them Russians now. Q: So the Soviets, I mean the Russians, are now our friends? A: Well, not really. You see, they were our friends for many years after they stopped being Soviets, but then they decided not to support our invasion of Iraq, so we're mad at them now. We're also mad at the French and the Germans because they didn't help us invade Iraq either. Q: So the French and Germans are evil, too? A: Not exactly evil, but just bad enough that we had to rename French fries and French toast to Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast. Q: Do we always rename foods whenever another country doesn't do what we want them to do? A: No, we just do that to our friends. Our enemies, we invade. Q: But wasn't Iraq one of our friends back in the 1980s? A: Well, yeah. For a while. Q: Was Saddam Hussein ruler of Iraq back then? A: Yes, but at the time he was fighting against Iran, which made him our friend, temporarily. Q: Why did that make him our friend? A: Because at that time, Iran was our enemy. Q: Isn't that when he gassed the Kurds? A: Yeah, but since he was fighting against Iran at the time, we looked the other way, to show him we were his friend. Q: So anyone who fights against one of our enemies automatically becomes our friend? A: Most of the time, yes. Q: And anyone who fights against one of our friends is automatically an enemy? A: Sometimes that's true, too. However, if American corporations can profit by selling weapons to both sides at the same time, all the better. Q: Why? A: Because war is good for the economy, which means war is good for America. Also, since God is on America's side, anyone who opposes war is a godless unAmerican Communist. Do you understand now why we attacked Iraq? Q: I think so. We attacked them because God wanted us to, right? A: Yes. Q: But how did we know God wanted us to attack Iraq? A: Well, you see, God personally speaks to George W. Bush and tells him what to do. Q: So basically, what you're saying is that we attacked Iraq because George W. Bush hears voices in his head? A. Yes! You finally understand how the world works. Now close your eyes, make yourself comfortable, and go to sleep. Good night. Good night, Daddy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KrustyKidd Posted May 11, 2004 Report Share Posted May 11, 2004 Can't believe I actually responded to this drivel but here it is; Q: Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?A: Because they had weapons of mass destruction. KK Wrong dad, they were in violation of a UN brokered cease-fire. Q: But the inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction.A: That's because the Iraqis were hiding them. KK Possibly, in any case, they did have WMD related material, related equipment, resources and an ongoing programs to build missile delivery systems in breach of the UN resolutions that represented the cease-fire. Hence, the cease-fire was invalid and ‘Member Nations assisting the government of Kuwait’ could legally resume military action. Q: And that's why we invaded Iraq?A: Yep. Invasions always work better than inspections. KK Cool if you are not paying the Billion$ plus fee per month to have a hundred thousand troops on the doorstep of Iraq to provide the incentive for cooperation that was unheard of before they were there. Even with those troops posted there, cooperation as Blix put it ‘still left much to be desired’ as prohibited material and equipment that was declared nonexistent was being discovered left and right on a daily basis. Inspections were to verify, not discover what they never hid well enough. Something most people don’t get. Q: But after we invaded them, we STILL didn't find any weapons of mass destruction, did we?A: That's because the weapons are so well hidden. Don't worry, we'll find something, probably right before the 2004 election. KK No dad. They will be found when they are found. Most idiots thought that Bush would fabricate WMD but he never did. Most idiots though Kay’s job was to fabricate and he never did. Most idiots suddenly believed Kay when he said he never found any WMD but suddenly didn’t like him when he said he found all sorts of deception, material, equipment and facilities that were all prohibited under the UN resolutions proving what Blix had already declared which confirmed yet again that the Invasion was Legal. Q: Why did Iraq want all those weapons of mass destruction?A: To use them in a war, silly. KK Wrong Daddy O. To use them to intimidate it’s neighbors so that they could invade them like they did Kuwait. The more power Saddam had, the more ground he could take. With a nuclear weapon he could keep that territory simply by aiming it at a population center in the ME, preferable not Israel as that would have a counter effect but something like Ridayh would do equally well. Q: I'm confused. If they had all those weapons that they planned to use in a war, then why didn't they use any of those weapons when we went to war with them?A: Well, obviously they didn't want anyone to know they had those weapons, so they chose to die by the thousands rather than defend themselves. KK Well dad, what are you? An idiot? Saddam told Dan Rather just before the invasion that he believed that America would never attack and pointed to all sorts of demonstrators around the world as proof. If he had weapons that could be found he would lose much of that support, support that he counted on. In effect, those demonstrators helped seal the fact of the invasion believe it or not. A. they chose to die by the thousands rather than defend themselves. KK They didn’t choose, Saddam sent them. As well, Saddam killed on average three thousand of his people per month, since the war, ten thousand people have died as a result of it, net saving of over twenty thousand lives. Q: That doesn't make sense. Why would they choose to die if they had all those big weapons with which they could have fought back?A: It's a different culture. It's not supposed to make sense. KK Saddam never intended to use WMD while the coalition was outside his country and sanctions were in place, he hid them and the technology to rebuild them so that after the UN tired of the cat and mouse game of trying to find what they knew he had and after providing no proof of disposal they would give up, lift sanctions and he would restart his quest for power using these unfound weapons (if any) but would easily restart the programs which he had so carefully dispersed about the country. Q: I don't know about you, but I don't think they had any of those weapons our government said they did.A: Well, you know, it doesn't matter whether or not they had those weapons. We had another good reason to invade them anyway. KK Correct. But first, they did have those weapons and provided no proof as to what their status was. While inspectors, under UN mandates looked about the country, they were hampered, lied to, not cooperated with and sometime s threatened both on the ground, in the air, and their families at home as well. While working with this crap, they still managed to turn up item after item of prohibited material and equipment that were prohibited from being in possession by Iraq and each item was then immediately declared by Iraq as being the last of it’s kind- until the next one was discovered. Q: And what was that?A: Even if Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator, which is another good reason to invade another country. KK Not really, Saddam was a cruel dictator in violation of UN law who was in the middle of a cease-fire after threatening to ignite the most volatile region on earth with his quest for domination of the same. Even that was not enough reason though. What provided the reason was 9 11 when the west understood quite well that the people of the ME had to be given an example, a starting point so that they could leave the middle ages with it’s ineffectual and cruel ways of governing and providing for the people and move into the modern age. Thus providing a lesser opportunity IN THE LONG RUN for terrorist recruiting. Q: Why? What does a cruel dictator do that makes it OK to invade his country?A: Well, for one thing, he tortured his own people. KK Yes he did. 300 thousand people went missing in a twenty year period, wives were dragged off the streets, raped and tortured in front of husbands and children in order to purposefully instill fear. Q: Kind of like what they do in China?A: Don't go comparing China to Iraq. China is a good economic competitor, where millions of people work for slave wages in sweatshops to make U.S. corporations richer. KK Kind of but in a much higher degree. Saddam and son’s not only used this torture practice as a means of governing but enjoyed it as well. Making video tapes for their own amusement as well as to distribute to others as a warning. China also is not in the Middle East, remember, that is the region that is giving the problem here. China is providing for it’s people and not sponsoring Anti Western Terrorists and trying to expand it’s theology by terrorism or even force. Q: So if a country lets its people be exploited for American corporate gain, it's a good country, even if that country tortures people?A: Right. KK Duh dad. You need to go back to school. If you can’t understand that there is more than one dimension to this issue then you will have to go back to Dad School. Many reasons add up to the Invasion of Iraq, none of them stand on their own yet put together add overwhelmingly in favor of the action. Q: Why were people in Iraq being tortured?A: For political crimes, mostly, like criticizing the government. People who criticized the government in Iraq were sent to prison and tortured. KK And for pleasure of the individuals that make up the regime. Rape was a common tactic when advances were refuted by desired women of officials. Unlike in western society these torturers had no accountability to their actions and people also did not have to be accounted for. Definitely a government that nobody is sorry to see go away. Q: Isn't that exactly what happens in China?A: I told you, China is different. KK Not quite. China does it as part of it’s control;, remember, Iraq does it to gain personal power by members of the regime. Q: Didn't you once tell me Communists were bad?A: No, just Cuban Communists are bad. KK No they are all bad. Communism is a perverted form of Socialism in which state sponsored terror is used to enforce supposed equality and loyalty to the government (which is ruled by a specific elite thereby making it a dictatorship) True or pure Socialism only works well in small groups like communes. Once you get bigger than a town you start to have human nature take over with it’s laziness, abuses of power and such. That is why the private sector is far more productive than the government sector. There are individual incentives that communism cannot give. Q: How are the Cuban Communists bad?A: Well, for one thing, people who criticize the government in Cuba are sent to prison and tortured. KK In Canada we can though. Cuba is a Communist country ruled over by a dictator. Hence, may as well call it a Dictatorship. Witness the thousands of people who risk life and death to escape it every year. Definitely anything but a good society. Q: But if we got rid of those laws, opened up trade with Cuba, and started doing business with them, wouldn't that help the Cubans become capitalists?A: Don't be a smart-ass. KK Dad doesn’t get it here, Castro is still in charge. Every other country on the planet does business with him and he still can’t make it work. Another example of why a Communist Dictatorship does not work for the people. Q: Kind of like China and the Falun Gong movement?A: I told you, stop saying bad things about China. Anyway, Saddam Hussein came to power through a military coup, so he's not really a legitimate leader anyway. Q: What's a military coup? A: That's when a military general takes over the government of a country by force, instead of holding free elections like we do in the United States. Q: Didn't the ruler of Pakistan come to power by a military coup? A: You mean General Pervez Musharraf? Uh, yeah, he did, but Pakistan is our friend. KK No, Pakistan is our ally against terrorism thank goodness as it has nukes. If it were not, it may be subject to regime change itself but with nukes the US would probably do anything to keep the present regime in power evil as it is.. Q: Didn't you just say a military general who comes to power by forcibly overthrowing the legitimate government of a nation is an illegitimate leader?A: Only Saddam Hussein. Pervez Musharraf is our friend, because he helped us invade Afghanistan. KK No, he is not our friend. Countries are not friends with other countries, they form alliances. If we were trying to be friends, negotiations would be done with six foot purple dinosaurs named Barney rather than lawyers, statesmen, financiers and military people. Q: Why did we invade Afghanistan?A: Because of what they did to us on September 11th. KK No, the government of Afghanistan harbored the group that committed 9 11 and did not give them up. Q: Didn't the Bush administration give the Taliban 43 million dollars back in May of 2001?A: Yes, but that money was a reward because they did such a good job fighting drugs. KK And they never expected them to support people that were trying to kill those of us in the west. It’s part of that alliance thing, once they were, then the next moment, they decide that they want to kill us westerners. They sgnalled their change of theology by harboring those who attacked the US and susequently, by not releasing the perpetrators opened themselves up to attack. Q: Don't they also cut off people's hands and heads in Saudi Arabia?A: That's different. Afghanistan was ruled by a tyrannical patriarchy that oppressed women and forced them to wear burqas whenever they were in public, with death by stoning as the penalty for women who did not comply. KK That’s their business Daddy O. What they really did was harbor the people who committed 9 11. Q: It sounds like the same thing with a different name.A: Now, don't go comparing Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are our friends. KK No. The Saudis are fence sitters holding back a tide of anarchy that would disrupt the supply of oil from the industrialized west. If the flow is stopped or deemed unstable then other sources will have to be used leaving the people of the Middle East starving and the price of oil skyrocketing. Very bad for everybody, French, Iraqis, Saudis included. Q: But I thought you said 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11th were from Saudi Arabia.A: Yes, but they trained in Afghanistan.[ Q: Who trained them? A: A very bad man named Osama bin Laden. Q: Was he from Afghanistan? A: Uh, no, he was from Saudi Arabia too. But he was a bad man, a very bad man. Q: I seem to recall he was our friend once. A: Only when we helped him and the mujahadeen repel the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan back in the 1980s. KK Dad! You’re beginning to get it! At one time he was our ally, when he began to kill us, he became our enemy. You learn so ... so .... quickly. Q: Who are the Soviets? Was that the Evil Communist Empire Ronald Reagan talked about?A: There are no more Soviets. The Soviet Union broke up in 1990 or thereabouts, and now they have elections and capitalism like us. We call them Russians now. Q: So the Soviets - I mean, the Russians - are now our friends? A: Well, not really. You see, they were our friends for many years after they stopped being Soviets, but then they decided not to support our invasion of Iraq, so we're mad at them now. We're also mad at the French and the Germans because they didn't help us invade Iraq either. KK No. . Stop using the word friends Dadster, it only reinforces the fact you don’t understand politics. Once the Soviet Union fell, business returned to where it was before with the Europeans vying for cultural and economic dominance over the world. France’s deals with Iraq suffered greatly when the US invaded and took out Saddam, also interrupting Chirac’s bribe money from Saddam for not stopping the US. Russia, not a rich country also lost billions it could hardly afford to lose in the same way by the ousting of Saddam. Q: So the French and Germans are evil, too?A: Not exactly evil, but just bad enough that we had to rename French fries and French toast to Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast. KK No, not evil, inconsequential. They have shown that even in the face of an obvious and justified opportunity they will still try and maintain the old status quo where they attempt to put the screws to America simply because they can in order to create their own brand of ‘hegemony’ on the world as leader of the EU... Q: Do we always rename foods whenever another country doesn't do what we want them to do?A: No, we just do that to our friends. Our enemies, we invade. KK No, individuals do. There is no love or hate in governments. Remember our discussion on friends and countries? Q: But wasn't Iraq one of our friends back in the 1980s?A: Well, yeah. For a while. KK No. Saddam was a useful ally. Never a friend. He stopped being an ally when he started doing things that were counter to our interest. Coincidently, those things he was doing were counter to the world’s interests not to mention the people of the region. To them, it was life and death. Q: Was Saddam Hussein ruler of Iraq back then?A: Yes, but at the time he was fighting against Iran, which made him our friend, temporarily. KK No, made him our ally in that particular effort. Q: Why did that make him our friend?A: Because at that time, Iran was our enemy. KK Dad, you have the gift for sure. Now try to connect the dots in that the political world never stands still. Ideological opposites become allies and Ideological positives become adversaries at different time periods. It’s really quite interesting as the countries of the world jockey for position. Q: Isn't that when he gassed the Kurds?A: Yeah, but since he was fighting against Iran at the time, we looked the other way, to show him we were his friend. KK No. We never looked the other way. However, we did remember and it provided reason to not be a full ally with him in later years. The French, Germans and Russians, who provided him with more than 80% of his armaments seemed to continue their friendship quite well. Q: So anyone who fights against one of our enemies automatically becomes our friend?A: Most of the time, yes. KK This can be called cause and effect. At one time we were allies with Russia against the Germans. The French against the German but as soon as the German threat was removed, everybody returned to the start point, save France, who needed us to stop the Russian s from taking them over. As you can see, allies and enemies are not cast in stone, rather, they are fluid depending on the situation and threat. Q: And anyone who fights against one of our friends is automatically an enemy?A: Sometimes that's true, too. However, if American corporations can profit by selling weapons to both sides at the same time, all the better. KK Yes that is true. A capitalistic society will by nature try to make money where it can. Q: Why?A: Because war is good for the economy, which means war is good for America. Also, since God is on America's side, anyone who opposes war is a godless unAmerican Communist. Do you understand now why we attacked Iraq? KK Dad, you are a better economist that a political analyst. You really should stick to your strengths and make change for a dollar instead. Q: I think so. We attacked them because God wanted us to, right?A: Yes. KK Dad, you reared a kid with ADD. Thought you were talking about money, where did God pop in? Q: But how did we know God wanted us to attack Iraq?A: Well, you see, God personally speaks to George W. Bush and tells him what to do. KK Kind of like he understands that he is not God and believes in a higher being like most of the people on the planet. Q: So basically, what you're saying is that we attacked Iraq because George W. Bush hears voices in his head?A: Yes! You finally understand how the world works. Now close your eyes, make yourself comfortable, and go to sleep. Good night. KK Dad must have gotten tired of idiotic thread as well. I have had enough too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted May 11, 2004 Report Share Posted May 11, 2004 PART ONE Wrong dad, they were in violation of a UN brokered cease-fire. KK, you keep mentioning that Iraq violated the 1991 cease-fire. So far, you're the only one who has (it certainly was never mentioned by Bush, Rummy, Powell, Rice or any other Bushnicks in the run up to the war). I find it alittle curious that this detail seems to have slipped the top decision-makers' notice. Even if such was the case, that certainly was not the primary rationale for war. Possibly, in any case, they did have WMD related material, related equipment, resources and an ongoing programs to build missile delivery systems in breach of the UN resolutions that represented the cease-fire. Hence, the cease-fire was invalid and ‘Member Nations assisting the government of Kuwait’ could legally resume military action. The UNSC rejected the joint US/UK/Spanish resolution which would have authorized military action against Iraq. Thus, the invasion was conducted without UN approval. So, trying to give the invasion legitimacy by bringing the UN into it, when that very body rejected military action, is just wrong. Cool if you are not paying the Billion$ plus fee per month to have a hundred thousand troops on the doorstep of Iraq to provide the incentive for cooperation that was unheard of before they were there. Even with those troops posted there, cooperation as Blix put it ‘still left much to be desired’ as prohibited material and equipment that was declared nonexistent was being discovered left and right on a daily basis. Inspections were to verify, not discover what they never hid well enough. Something most people don’t get. It's been a year. There's nothing there. What is this "prohibited material" that's been found, and does any of it constitute evidence of a "grave and gathering danger"? Much of the "evidence" used to determine the Iraq "threat" has since been discredited, as have many of the "WMD program-related activity" finds (remember the "bio-weapon" trailers?). There's always going to be an element of resonable doubt about Iraq's weapons capabilites. But we had the former head of the UN weapons inspectors in Iraq saying that 90-95% of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capability had been verifiably eliminated since 1998. He was ignored and smeared. Hans Blix, while grousing about the uncooperative Iraqis (keep in perspective too that Iraq had previously-and correctly- accused past weapons inspection teams of harbouring U.S. spies), has since concluded that Iraq destroyed all its banned weapons after 1991. In other words: the inspections worked. Most idiots suddenly believed Kay when he said he never found any WMD but suddenly didn’t like him when he said he found all sorts of deception, material, equipment and facilities that were all prohibited under the UN resolutions proving what Blix had already declared which confirmed yet again that the Invasion was Legal The same Kay who described Iraq's WMD threat as a "theory" that was "possible, but not likely" and who told the Senate that "we were almost all wrong" about WMD. The deception described by Kay related to Iraqi scientists who "realized they could go directly to Mr. Hussein and present fanciful plans for weapons programs, and receive approval and large amounts of money." Whatever was left of an effective weapons capability, Kay said, was largely subsumed into corrupt money-raising schemes by scientists skilled in the arts of lying and surviving in a police state. "The whole thing shifted from directed programs to a corrupted process. The regime was no longer in control; it was like a death spiral. Saddam was self-directing projects that were not vetted by anyone else. The scientists were able to fake programs."-Kay in The New York Times January 26, 2004 To use them to intimidate it’s neighbors so that they could invade them like they did Kuwait. The more power Saddam had, the more ground he could take. With a nuclear weapon he could keep that territory simply by aiming it at a population center in the ME, preferable not Israel as that would have a counter effect but something like Ridayh would do equally well. Yet Israel is still allowed to keep its illegal nuke stockpile? I'm confused. "When I left Iraq in 1998, when the UN inspection programme ended, the infrastructure and facilities had been 100% eliminated. There’s no debate about that. All of their instruments and facilities had been destroyed. The weapons design facility had been destroyed. The production equipment had been hunted down and destroyed. And we had in place means to monitor - both from vehicles and from the air - the gamma rays that accompany attempts to enrich uranium or plutonium. We never found anything. We can say unequivocally that the industrial infrastructure needed by Iraq to produce nuclear weapons had been eliminated."-Scott Ritter, ex-cheif weapons inspector, 2002 Certainly Saddam was after a nuke and otehr WMD. However, he completely lacked the capability to build them. So why would he pretend to have them (or at least create the conditions whereby it was persumed he did have them)? Easy. Saddam long fancied himself as the future of Pan-Arab statehood. Posessing a nuke would put Iraq on par with Israel and give Saddam enormous prestige in the Arab world, while acting as a deterrent and a lever in negotiations. Whateve rteh motivation, the fact is, Saddam's nuclear program was a pipe dream, nothing more. If he had weapons that could be found he would lose much of that support, support that he counted on. In effect, those demonstrators helped seal the fact of the invasion believe it or not. Yeah, because demonstraters have the power to stop wars (we wished, but we're idealistic that way.) I don't believe Saddam (who by all accounts was getting increasingly irrational as war drew closer) actually expected the U.S. to invade. Saddam never intended to use WMD while the coalition was outside his country and sanctions were in place, he hid them and the technology to rebuild them so that after the UN tired of the cat and mouse game of trying to find what they knew he had and after providing no proof of disposal they would give up, lift sanctions and he would restart his quest for power using these unfound weapons (if any) but would easily restart the programs which he had so carefully dispersed about the country. Ritter, Blix and Kay have all admitted no programs existed. When will it sink in for you? Saddam was a cruel dictator in violation of UN law who was in the middle of a cease-fire after threatening to ignite the most volatile region on earth with his quest for domination of the same. Even that was not enough reason though. What provided the reason was 9 11 when the west understood quite well that the people of the ME had to be given an example, a starting point so that they could leave the middle ages with it’s ineffectual and cruel ways of governing and providing for the people and move into the modern age. Thus providing a lesser opportunity IN THE LONG RUN for terrorist recruiting. Saddam was never a threat, but a target weakened by war and 12 years of sanctions. As for the west's "gift" of democracy", everyone knows democracy doesn't come from the barrell of a gun. The Arab world know sthis and looks at western support of dictators like the house of Saud, Murabek and Mushareff and they're continued support of Israel's apartheid policies as evidence that the west doesn't care about freedom for the Arab people. Iraq was anothejr battle in the war for the hearts and minds of the Arab people is over. It's a war that's already been lost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KrustyKidd Posted May 11, 2004 Report Share Posted May 11, 2004 KK, you keep mentioning that Iraq violated the 1991 cease-fire. So far, you're the only one who has (it certainly was never mentioned by Bush, Rummy, Powell, Rice or any other Bushnicks in the run up to the war). I find it alittle curious that this detail seems to have slipped the top decision-makers' notice. Even if such was the case, that certainly was not the primary rationale for war. The UNSC rejected the joint US/UK/Spanish resolution which would have authorized military action against Iraq. Thus, the invasion was conducted without UN approval. So, trying to give the invasion legitimacy by bringing the UN into it, when that very body rejected military action, is just wrong. It's been a year. There's nothing there. What is this "prohibited material" that's been found, and does any of it constitute evidence of a "grave and gathering danger"? Much of the "evidence" used to determine the Iraq "threat" has since been discredited, as have many of the "WMD program-related activity" finds (remember the "bio-weapon" trailers?). There's always going to be an element of resonable doubt about Iraq's weapons capabilites. But we had the former head of the UN weapons inspectors in Iraq saying that 90-95% of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capability had been verifiably eliminated since 1998. He was ignored and smeared. Hans Blix, while grousing about the uncooperative Iraqis (keep in perspective too that Iraq had previously-and correctly- accused past weapons inspection teams of harbouring U.S. spies), has since concluded that Iraq destroyed all its banned weapons after 1991. In other words: the inspections worked. . Blix's report to the UN in partParagraph 9 of Resolution 1441 (2002) states that this cooperation shall be "active". It is not enough to open doors. Inspection is not a game of "catch as catch can".. It is not built upon the premise of trust. Rather, it is designed to lead to trust, if there is both openness to the inspectors and action to present them with items to destroy or credible evidence about the absence of any such items. The Al Samoud's diameter was increased from an earlier version to the present 760 mm. This modification was made despite a 1994 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNSCOM directing Iraq to limit its missile diameters to less than 600 mm. Furthermore, a November 1997 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNSCOM to Iraq prohibited the use of engines from certain surface-to-air missiles for the use in ballistic missiles. During my recent meeting in Baghdad, we were briefed on these two programs. We were told that the final range for both systems would be less than the permitted maximum range of 150 km. When we have urged our Iraqi counterparts to present more evidence, we have all too often met the response that there are no more documents. All existing relevant documents have been presented, we are told. All documents relating to the biological weapons program were destroyed together with the weapons. However, Iraq has all the archives of the Government and its various departments, institutions and mechanisms. It should have budgetary documents, requests for funds and reports on how they have been used. It should also have letters of credit and bills of lading, reports on production and losses of material. This interpretation is refuted by the Iraqi side, which claims that research staff sometimes may bring home papers from their work places. On our side, we cannot help but think that the case might not be isolated and that such placements of documents is deliberate to make discovery difficult and to seek to shield documents by placing them in private homes. To summarize the summary: These reports do not contend that weapons of mass destruction remain in Iraq, but nor do they exclude that possibility. They point to lack of evidence and inconsistencies, which raise question marks, which must be straightened out, if weapons dossiers are to be closed and confidence is to arise. Nor do they exclude that possiblity Even Blix, who was doing everything he could to avert war could not say that WMD themselves were not in Iraq. There are also indications that the agent was weaponizied. Hmmm, that would mean WMD right? 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 [metric] tons.. Hmmm, that would mean WMD right? Somewhere in the amount of 2 million pounds of it, enough to fill three or four semi trailers. The discovery of a number of 122 mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions. . The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve but rather points to the issue of several thousands of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for. Gee, Saddam was at least staying busy while he hampered inspections. What could he have been moving around with all those helping hands? There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. As I reported to the Council on 19 December last year, Iraq did not declare a significant quantity, some 650 kg, of bacterial growth media WO! Iraq was seemingly decieving the inspectors. Imagine that. Why though? MAybe to keep the stuff they had said they destroyed even though they didn't? The absence of this table would appear to be deliberate as the pages of the resubmitted document were renumbered. Hmmm that would mean deception and not cooperating with inspectors right? I note that the quantity of media involved would suffice to produce, for example, about 5,000 liters of concentrated anthrax. Hmmm, that would mean WMD if dropped in one of the warheads they had right? final range for both systems would be less than the permitted maximum range of 150 km. Hmmm, afterwards Blix discovered these have a range of more than 600 miles. This would mean prohibitted weapons right? such placements of documents is deliberate to make discovery difficult and to seek to shield documents by placing them in private homes Hmmm, scince then they have discovered scientists with crates of 'take home work' documents in their homes. One even had parts for a freakin particle separator in his garden as 'take nhome work' for crying out loud! Where is this stuff? Well, they bury fighter jets and move labs around. Why is it beyond the scope of anybody's immagination to think that three trailers containg drums of whatever are not somewhere under the ground in the uninspected two thirds of Iraq? Or in one of these unaccounted for warheads in one of the 120 uninspected weapons depots? Anyhow, the world thought they were there. Herre are some quotes from leaders who are quoted using the same intelligence the US worked on. "This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998 "What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002 "The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998 "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to re build his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002 "I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003 "Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998 "Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002 "I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002 "Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002 "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002 "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002 "I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002 "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002 "Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002 " Weapons of mass destruction. That's right, he had them. We should know -- we gave them to him!" Michael Moore And here are the applicable resolutions: 686 4. Recognizes that during the period required for Iraq to comply with paragraphs 2 and 3 above, the provisions of paragraph 2 of resolution 678 (1990) remain valid; 686 2. Demands that Iraq implement its acceptance of all twelve resolutions noted above 678 2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area; On 27 Jan, Blix reported all sorts of stuff still being discovered in Iraq. They were cooperating he said, 'an encouraging sign' but nowhere near the spirit of the orders they had signed the ceasefire with. For a country that was supposed to be free of 'WMD and all quipment, related material and resources' (including dual purpose stuff) thery sure had a lot that was 'discovered' rather than 'turned in.' 687 8. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of: (a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities; ( All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities; Seems that this all adds up to a cease fire that was broken by Iraq. Or should I say, never fullly complied with. Therefore, member states (USA, France, Britain and whoever else including Syria, SA and all) cooperating with the government of Kuwait, acting under res 678 para2 "all subsequent resolutions" can simply resume military action. Yet Israel is still allowed to keep its illegal nuke stockpile? I'm confused. I have no illusions of what would happen to Israel if they didn't have them. As well, if you say that Israel with Nukes and an elected Government is the same as a band of Belt Bombers dancing around a smoking missile shouting "Ali Akkbarr!" and firing AK 47s in the air I have to question your sanity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted May 11, 2004 Report Share Posted May 11, 2004 Nor do they exclude that possiblity Even Blix, who was doing everything he could to avert war could not say that WMD themselves were not in Iraq. Even Riitter was willing to concede Iraq was short of full compliance. However, the question is: does the accounted for portions of Iraq's weapons programs constitute as threat to the U.S. or Iraq's neighbours. THAT was the reaon for this war, not because the U.S. sudenly took an interest in human rights and freedom for Iraqi people. "[N]o terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people than the regime of Saddam Hussein and Iraq." Source: Testimony of U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, Senate Armed Services Committee (9/19/2002). There it is: "an immediate threat." There are also indications that the agent was weaponizied.What agent are you talking about?Iraq manufactured three nerve agents: sarin, tabun, and VX. . Sarin and tabun have a shelf-life of five years. Even if Iraq had somehow managed to hide this vast number of weapons from inspectors, what they are now storing is nothing more than useless, harmless goo. Chemical weapons were produced in the Muthanna state establishment: a massive chemical weapons factory that was bombed during the 1991 Gulf war, and then weapons inspectors came and completed the task of eliminating the facility. That means Iraq lost its sarin and tabun manufacturing base. As for VX, Iraq did weaponize VX, but all of its research and development and production facilities were destroyed in 1996, which means that any new VX production would have to have occured right under the U.S.'s nose, while any stockpiles would have degraded by now. There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. As I reported to the Council on 19 December last year, Iraq did not declare a significant quantity, some 650 kg, of bacterial growth media Anthrax even under ideal storage conditions, germinates in three years, becoming useless. So, even if Iraq lied to us and held on to anthrax it would be useless. QUOTE The absence of this table would appear to be deliberate as the pages of the resubmitted document were renumbered. Hmmm that would mean deception and not cooperating with inspectors right? QUOTE I note that the quantity of media involved would suffice to produce, for example, about 5,000 liters of concentrated anthrax. Hmmm, that would mean WMD if dropped in one of the warheads they had right? QUOTE final range for both systems would be less than the permitted maximum range of 150 km. Hmmm, afterwards Blix discovered these have a range of more than 600 miles. This would mean prohibitted weapons right? Again: prohibited? yes. An immediate threat? Doubtful. Hmmm, scince then they have discovered scientists with crates of 'take home work' documents in their homes. One even had parts for a freakin particle separator in his garden as 'take nhome work' for crying out loud! See, the fact that you're still citing "evidence" that has been refuted shows your case is weak. What next? Yellowcake? No smoking gun. The International Atomic Energy Agency said Thursday the parts needed to develop a bomb program that the CIA says were found in Baghdad are not "evidence of a smoking gun" proving Iraq had a current weapons of mass destruction program. "The findings refer to material and documents of the pre-1991 Iraqi nuclear weapons program that have been well-known to the agency," said spokesman Mark Gwozdecky. The CIA said it has critical parts of a key piece of Iraqi nuclear technology, parts needed to develop a bomb program that were dug up in a Baghdad back yard Resolution yadda yadda yadda Resolution 678 was addressed to a particular situation at a particular time, and it authorized the states acting in coalition with Kuwait to take military action. The problem to which it was addressed was wrapped up with the ceasefire. Basically you're saying that any state that happened to be a member of that coalition ten years ago retains the right to use force against Iraq in perpetuity. Which strikes me as being more than a bit absurd. As for Resolution 687, you are interpreting it as being conditional on Iraq fulfilling the conditions required of it. However a close reading of the text of the resolution makes clear that the ceasefire will come into effect if Iraq simply accepts the terms of the resolution; the resolution goes on to state that it is then up to the Security Council to “take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the current resolution.” This means any additional action against Iraq for violations of the cease fire agreement needed to be approved by the UNSC. No individual state retained the right to use force, even to punish Iraq for breaches of the resolution or to force compliance. I have no illusions of what would happen to Israel if they didn't have them. As well, if you say that Israel with Nukes and an elected Government is the same as a band of Belt Bombers dancing around a smoking missile shouting "Ali Akkbarr!" and firing AK 47s in the air I have to question your sanity Oh yes, poor, defenceless Israel. Why they only have the largest military in the region and the full backing of the world's only superpower. The need illegal nukes to survive, dammit! Hysterical pronouncements of Israel's impending destruction do little more than serve as justification and cover for that nations many crimes (including posession of illegal WMD). As for parralells between Israeli leadership and suicide bombers, the former may wear business suits instead of khafirs, but they are every bit as morally bankrupt and criminal as their Palestinian counterparts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KrustyKidd Posted May 11, 2004 Report Share Posted May 11, 2004 Point is Black Dog that Saddam had every intention of resuming the manufacture and weaponisation of WMD as soon as the inspectors left. Hardly an effective programe now is it? He never complied, never had any intention. READ KAY'S REPORT TO THE HOUSE PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE, Oct 2 2003. It has all sorts of examples of deception, actual material that showed Iraq was in breach of the ceasefire on fully intending on reconstituting it's WMD programs. As for WMD themselves, we can argue semantics all day but the general wish of the world was to have Saddam give up these aspirations and had fought a war, enacted sanctions, conducted inspections to verify adherence and enacted 14 resolutions to do so. And still he had no intention of complying. Go ahead, read the report from Kay, there may not be the smoking gun there but rather, a smouldering fire wating to spring to life the moment the world gave up. That might not justify this to you but it sure makes the world a lot safer in the long run. "[N]o terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people than the regime of Saddam Hussein and Iraq." Crap. Totally BS. Does he say that Iraq is an imminent threat? No, rather he says that Iraq is number one on their to do list. Who is second and third? Fourth? What agent are you talking about? IT'S ALL HERE BLIX'S REPORT Anthrax even under ideal storage conditions, germinates in three years, becoming useless. So, even if Iraq lied to us and held on to anthrax it would be useless. Oh, OK then. Gee, had me worried there for a minute. So having trailerloads of this stuff is harmless and can be fed to cattle or what? It's deadly chemical for crying out loud, why hide it and decieve inspectors if it's harmless. This is not the smoking gun but rather an idication of the BS that Saddam and Co were handing out as fact to inspectors. What about all the stuff they didn't find? Guess that we can just wait a few million years and all sorts of stuff beomes harmless too. No sense doing anything about anything then. Even if Iraq lied to us Black Dog, I can't beleive you said that. Again: prohibited? yes. An immediate threat? Doubtful. Bush - Ste of the Union "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late."Bush - State of the Union Address Read the resolutions and cross reference them. The intent is clear as they refer more than once to 'prior' and 'subsequent' resolutions reiterating that the old ones still stand and that the one spoken of is still ineffect and applies to subsequent ones. . As for parralells between Israeli leadership and suicide bombers, the former may wear business suits instead of khafirs, but they are every bit as morally bankrupt and criminal as their Palestinian counterparts. Gee Black Dog, I don't feel threatened by Israel having nukes, do you? I imagine that if I were a terrorist or some Islamic Fashist I wouldn't like it but I don't care. I am not and find that as we share many of the same idealogical similarities as Israel so don't feel threatened. I have more concern for Al Queda, Hamas, Syria or Iraq under Saddam having them though as not only do we not share many similarities but often find ourselves the object of their anger.. In that case, I would feel somewhat uneasy. Can you provide me with even the loosest of proceedures or SOPs that one of the latter group might use as critera for a launch other than self defence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted May 11, 2004 Report Share Posted May 11, 2004 Point is Black Dog that Saddam had every intention of resuming the manufacture and weaponisation of WMD as soon as the inspectors left. Hardly an effective programe now is it? I'd say a programme that destroyed 90-95 per cent of Iraq's weapons producing capabilities is pretty effective. And as for the idea that Saddam could just start new programmes once the inspections finished, well, that's easier said than done. It took Iraq many, many years to develop the weapons programs it had pre-1991, programs developed with support from western nations. To do it again, they would have to start from scratch, having been deprived of all equipment, facilities and research. They would have to procure the complicated tools and technology required through front companies. This would be detected. The manufacture of chemical weapons emits vented gases that would be detected. They'd have to do it right under our noses, undetected. Not too likely. Crap. Totally BS. Does he say that Iraq is an imminent threat? No, rather he says that Iraq is number one on their to do list. Who is second and third? Fourth? You seem to have blacked out. I'll post it again, just for you. "[N]o terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people than the regime of Saddam Hussein and Iraq." (hint: immediate means "right now") It's deadly chemical for crying out loud, why hide it and decieve inspectors if it's harmless. I don't know. Pride? Stupidity? What about all the stuff they didn't find? Again: what stuff? David Kay's report: "Multiple sources with varied access and reliability have told ISG [the Iraq Survey Group] that Iraq did not have a large, ongoing centrally controlled CW [chemical weapons] program after 1991. … Iraq's large-scale capability to develop, produce, and fill new CW munitions was reduced—if not entirely destroyed—during Operations Desert Storm and Desert Fox [Clinton's 1998 airstrikes], 13 years of UN sanctions and UN inspections." Read the resolutions and cross reference them. The intent is clear as they refer more than once to 'prior' and 'subsequent' resolutions reiterating that the old ones still stand and that the one spoken of is still ineffect and applies to subsequent ones. . Once again: 687 states that its up to the Security Council to “take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the current resolution.” Period. Gee Black Dog, I don't feel threatened by Israel having nukes, do you Yes. Israel's nuclear capability is a threat to regional stability, especially if it were to fall into the wrong hands. That's why we have treaties liek the Non-Proliferation treaty: to stop the spread of dangerous nuclear weapons and prevent the possibility of nuclear conflict. In fact, Isral's nuclear status was a key impetus behind Iraq's aborted efforts to go nuclear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KrustyKidd Posted May 11, 2004 Report Share Posted May 11, 2004 I'd say a programme that destroyed 90-95 per cent of Iraq's weapons producing capabilities is pretty effective. And as for the idea that Saddam could just start new programmes once the inspections finished, well, that's easier said than done.It took Iraq many, many years to develop the weapons programs it had pre-1991, programs developed with support from western nations. To do it again, they would have to start from scratch, having been deprived of all equipment, facilities and research. They would have to procure the complicated tools and technology required through front companies. This would be detected. The manufacture of chemical weapons emits vented gases that would be detected. They'd have to do it right under our noses, undetected. Not too likely. Read Kays report. It refutes everything you just said. the whole thing was there in pieces to be reconsituted. Know what Chemical weapons are made of? Pesticide with a few extra prodeedures thown in. Not that simple but all the componants can be separate and then combined later providing you have the expertise, equipment and basic recipes. All you need is delivery systems. Read Kays report. It details the extraordinary attempts to keep and develop deliver systems. BTW, do you have any idea of what a 'stockpile' of chemical agent would look like? Take the whole thing that the world figured Iraq had and it would fit into a two car garage. Take it apart and it fits into a couple of semis. Take it apart futher and you can put it into a few private basements or in some holes in the ground the size of which Saddam was found iin. Now, lets go to what Kay found, a few percursors that can be carried around in an overnight bag and be used to make much more. Remember, Iraq was supposed to have given up on alllllllll this stuff. So why was Blix and Kay (and Kay's successor) still finding stuff that should, to Saddam, have been an extremely hot potato? Answer, he had every intention of carrying on with his aspirations after the UN gave up. Saddam with WMD, Saddam with nukes. He never would have stopped. Read Kay's report. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted May 12, 2004 Report Share Posted May 12, 2004 Read Kays report. It refutes everything you just said. the whole thing was there in pieces to be reconsituted. Kay's report proves that Saddam wanted and, in some cases, tried to resurrect the weapons programs that he had built in the 1980s, but that the United Nations sanctions and inspections prevented him from doing so. Kay's report paints apicture of Saddam as being a threat to aquire WMD after Iraq was free of sanctions. If you read it, it's hedged in sugestive language and speculation, but short on real proof of any ongoing efforts to rebuild the WMD program. Hence the shift from the pre-war "stockpiles" of WMD we heard the White House talk about to talk of "WMD related program materials". Know what Chemical weapons are made of? Pesticide with a few extra prodeedures thown in. Not that simple but all the componants can be separate and then combined later providing you have the expertise, equipment and basic recipes. All you need is delivery systems. Just about any country, starting from scratch, could produce chemical weapons, given enough time and access to the materials. But as I indicated earlier, Iraq didn't have the facilities (chemical weapons of th etype Iraq was accused of posessing are highly unstable and require special production facilities and stabalizing agents) or the raw materials necessary for a viable chemical weapons program. There's nothing in Kay's report the contradicts my previous statement that Iraq would have had to start its WMD program from scratch. Answer, he had every intention of carrying on with his aspirations after the UN gave up. So again, we're back to the question of whether or not Iraq was an immediate threat, as suggested by Bush, Rumsfled, Powell, et al. By your own admission, the answer is "no". The simple soultion, given the conclusion of the Kay report, would have been to maintain sanctions (albeit a modified, more humanitarian, regime) and periodic inspections. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KrustyKidd Posted May 12, 2004 Report Share Posted May 12, 2004 So again, we're back to the question of whether or not Iraq was an immediate threat, as suggested by Bush, Rumsfled, Powell, et al. By your own admission, the answer is "no". "[N]o terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people than the regime of Saddam Hussein and Iraq."Source: Testimony of U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, Senate Armed Services Committee (9/19/2002). "No bill poses a greater or more immeiate threat to my bank account than my truck payments." Does that mean I am going bankrupt or that I better pay attention to it or it could become a real problem? "But the President also believes that this problem has to be dealt with, and if the United Nations won't deal with it, then the United States, with other likeminded nations, may have to deal with it. We would prefer not to go that route, but the danger is so great, with respect to Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction, and perhaps even terrorists getting hold of such weapons, that it is time for the international community to act, and if it doesn't act, the President is prepared to act with likeminded nations."Source: Colin Powell Interview by Ellen Ratner of Talk Radio News, Talk Radio News (10/30/2002). Iraq had to be dealt with, when? Yesterday? Nobody said that, he "said the danger is so great" and "that it is time" When is it time? Yesterday or when we can do it properly? Nowhere does it say immediate or imminent. "On its present course, the Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency. . . . it has developed weapons of mass death."Source: President, House Leadership Agree on Iraq Resolution, White House (10/2/2002). In the same speech he also said: " The United States will work with other nations. We'll work with other nations to bring Saddam to account. We'll work with other nations to help the Iraqi people form a just government and a unified country. And should force be required, the United States will help rebuild a liberated Iraq." Gee, just tripping all over themselves to get to Iraq within a day or two, stopping off of course in the pickup so Chirac can parachute in to stop the 'imminent' threat you speak of. Is this coalititon he is trying to set up at this time sprung loaded ready to move in hours or years? "The history, the logic, and the facts lead to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime's good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take."Source: President Bush's Address to the United Nations General Assembly, White House (9/12/2002). "Grave and gathering" sounds like something imminent could possibly or probably happen in the future, soon maybe. Not imminent though. Try Cheny; "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us."Source: Vice President Cheney Speaks at VFW 103rd National Convention, White House (8/26/2002). Nope, even with bad intelligence, he still doesn't say or imply that it is imminent. If he did it would sound like this; "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction and is ready to use them immediately against our friends, against our allies, and against us. We must act now. He didn't though did he? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted May 12, 2004 Report Share Posted May 12, 2004 Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction and is ready to use them immediately against our friends, against our allies, and against us. We must act now.He didn't though did he? Your being fatuous, KK. You know as well as I do that the run up to the war was a massive, highly orchestrated PR campaign. You can review the record and see that the administration's carefully constructed messaging (a "grave and gathering" danger, a "unique and urgent" and "immediate" threat , a "distinct threat" to security and to the stability of the world) was intended to create the impression that America was in pressing danger from Saddam's WMD and action needed to be taken immediately. (Why Saddam was a greater danger now than at any time in the previous 12 years was never explained.) That Iraq's WMD "stockpile" was an immediate threat was the hook that sold the war. How many people, after all, would have supported this war if they believed Iraq was disarmed? Without an imminent threat, or the perception thereof, they would have had no case for war at this time. As for the future threat posed by Iraq, comparasons to past behaviour are worthless without the context in which they occurred. Saddam invaded Iran with the (at minimum) tacit approval of the U.S. government and much of the west, who saw Saddam's secular regime as a bulwark against a regional Islamic revolution. The invasion of Kuwait was motivated primarily by economic concerns (Iraq's economy floundered following the costly Iran Iraq war, during which Kuwait actually supported Saddam's regime; Saddam wanted Kuwait to forgive Iraq's outstanding debt and to cease slant drilling of Iraqi oil reserves) and with the understanding that the U.S. would have no position on a regional dispute. So, while Iraq has a record of aggression, it was far from senseless. If anything, the atatcks against Iran and Kuwait were motivated by Hussein's concerns for self-preservation. To extrapolate from these regional conflicts to make the point that Hussein would launch a WMD strike against the U.S. or its allies (at which point the regimes destruction would be assured) ignores historical context and preexisting patterns of behavior. Quite simply, wars cannot be fought on an "if". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KrustyKidd Posted May 13, 2004 Report Share Posted May 13, 2004 You know as well as I do that the run up to the war was a massive, highly orchestrated PR campaign. You can review the record and see that the administration's carefully constructed messaging (a "grave and gathering" danger, a "unique and urgent" and "immediate" threat , a "distinct threat" to security and to the stability of the world) was intended to create the impression that America was in pressing danger from Saddam's WMD and action needed to be taken immediately. (Why Saddam was a greater danger now than at any time in the previous 12 years was never explained.) I never said it wasn’t a sell BD. As I have been contending for the last year, any idiot would know that as soon as the main issue shifted from WMD to Regime Change you knew they where the real concern was. I agree with that rationale as I never felt Saddam was an immediate threat to the free world but on the contrary, his dilapidated army and lack of ready to use long range missiles allowed me to sleep quite safe at night. However, his very large dilapidated third rate army could still kick the heck out of all the other dilapidated fourth and fifth rate armies in the region. It is not just the US economy that runs on oil but the whole industrialized world. Even if it owns the whole Middle Eat the US would still have to pay market price for the oil. France gets it at the same price as they do no matter who controls it. Not only is the ME a necessary region of the world for the world but it is also one screwed up place. A guy like Saddam seeking dominance with WMD would be a nightmare. He would be an (ok, here you go Black Dog, I’m going to say it) imminent threat to his neighbors and posess an unreasonable and dangerous influence on the region and subsequently the whole world. Make deals with any country he wanted to help hm with his quest for power. He would never stop. If you can’t understand that then I don’t know what to say. Scince Bull and the Supergun episode he has sought to have powerful tools to intimidate his nieghbors, I asked you to read Kays report and you shrugged it off saying there is nothing there. Possibly you missed the point, as I stated that I was an am sure that WMD were not the actual reason for this action, the future of the ME with Saddam having WMD was. Historiclly he has sought to aquire and keep his WMD capabillities and Kay, Blix and Duelfer all confirm that he continued to do so right to the end of his Regime. During the years under sanctions, Saddam used these sanctions as control over his people by hoarding food and medicine and using UN issued ration cards as a carrot and stick for obedience while after 14 resolutions against him pursued his goal of having Nuclear, Chemical and Biological Weapons. Before you run off and start shouting semantics about how he was not that close and this and that remember, when sanctions were lifted and Saddam was under no obligation to admit to inspections he would be free to reconstitute any program he wanted free from prying eyes. He ensured that that percursor material was there, the basic equipment was there, the expertise was there. It does not take a lot to make WMD if you have the hard parts in place and only lack the opportunity to assemble it all in a safe place undisturbed. Read Kay’s report again. No massive stockpiles but a clear intention to process WMD in a country where there shouldn’t even be a document with the abbreviation ‘WMD’ written on it. They have missile plans, fuel enrichment programs, attempts to get outside aid in developing delivery systems, medium missiles with engines that cannot get beyond the 150 km limit yet all have the specific (yet more expensive and unecessary) framework to take the larger engine that Irag had and was using for something else. Only take a couple of mechs to change one around. He had precursor agents, empty clandestine laboratories declared illegal by the UN and undeclared. Now why would they have all that BD? Why would Saddam give orders to those running them not to say anything to the UN under threat of death? If they were begnein then he would be wanting them to shout that from the roof tops. That Iraq's WMD "stockpile" was an immediate threat was the hook that sold the war. How many people, after all, would have supported this war if they believed Iraq was disarmed? Without an imminent threat, or the perception thereof, they would have had no case for war at this time. They never said that it was an imminent threat. You threw out all this irrefutable evidence in quotes but none of them said that. None of them said there was an immediate threat. I am smart but no Eienstein and I never had any fear of Saddam beyond his simply because some people are too stupid to understand that Iraq was an issue that shouldn’t be ignored and should be dealt with ASAP does not make it imminent. No matter how you try to twist the bullshit, they never said that. So why don’t you get off the pot and lets move on and progress here. Now getting back to the real reason of the war - Democracy Seeding, they had to give the brain candy out to the idiots because here we are and even a smart guy like you can’t figure out that’s the intent much less get behind it to support you country to go to war. (If you were an American I mean) It is no surprise they used WMD as it also made it legal. Also, everybody figured he had them or correctly assumed he was still trying to make them or keep the capability counter to 14 ressolutions. As for the future threat posed by Iraq, comparison to past behavior are worthless without the context in which they occurred. Saddam invaded Iran with the (at minimum) tacit approval of the U.S. government and much of the west, who saw Saddam's secular regime as a bulwark against a regional Islamic revolution. The invasion of Kuwait was motivated primarily by economic concerns (Iraq's economy floundered following the costly Iran Iraq war, during which Kuwait actually supported Saddam's regime; Saddam wanted Kuwait to forgive Iraq's outstanding debt and to cease slant drilling of Iraqi oil reserves) and with the understanding that the U.S. would have no position on a regional dispute. Permission? At best it was a yellow light with a recommendation that he try to seek an ‘Arab Solution’ with his brothers in Egypt, Saudi and Syria. I wonder, when a half million armed-to-the-teeth coalition forces opposed him did he still figure he had permission or would that not have been a fairly clear signal that he didn’t? Boy, if you ever get put in charge of defense let me know ahead of time so I can build a bomb shelter. According to your rationale the US is going to rightfully declare war on Canada because we are shipping softwood lumber in secret. Tell me, if your neighbor’s kid breaks your window with a baseball and I say it's between yu and him do you go over and blow his head off with a shotgun or talk to the guy and work something out? So, while Iraq has a record of aggression, it was far from senseless. If anything, the attacks against Iran and Kuwait were motivated by Hussein's concerns for self-preservation. Ah, now I get it. He was a poor victim. He only killed millions because he had a bad childhood and was misunderstood? Sure, he had money problems Black Dog but why? Because he was spending it all on weapons for crying out loud! Spending it all on keeping his power schemes together. To extrapolate from these regional conflicts to make the point that Hussein would launch a WMD strike against the U.S. or its allies (at which point the regimes destruction would be assured) ignores historical context and preexisting patterns of behavior. If he had a few usable nukes and aimed them at Israel, Saudi and Kuwait and walked into Jordan with Chemical Weapons there wouldn’t be much action happening there. Who would you shoot without taking out your allies? Silly idea but he has done worse. Quite simply, wars cannot be fought on an "if". Most of them are. Nobody waits until the time is right for the enemy to attack, that’s how Pearl Harbor happened. Everybody knew the Japanese were the enemy but nobody figured they would do anything. Should have been some “ifs” happening there. Another point, this wasn’t a war. Saddam was set up probably since 2000 sometime for this. We both agree that he was no imminent threat but I believe he was an opportunity to move into the ME and seed some democracy using legal means and what the US thought would be backing from the Arab world and complete cooperation from the people of Iraq. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted May 13, 2004 Report Share Posted May 13, 2004 Possibly you missed the point, as I stated that I was an am sure that WMD were not the actual reason for this action, the future of the ME with Saddam having WMD was. Historiclly he has sought to aquire and keep his WMD capabillities and Kay, Blix and Duelfer all confirm that he continued to do so right to the end of his Regime. Seeking and having the capability to do so are two very different things. Look back a ways to Scott Ritter's description of how Iraq's WMD program was operating. Unlike you rpicture of a hyper focussed, ultra efficient WMD machine that was poised to swing into action the instant sanctions were lifted and the pressure was off, we instead see a corrupt, bloated, bureaucratic regime where scientists took money from Saddam for WMD work that was never done, filed false information and basically, lied to stay alive and to lin etheir own pockets. He ensured that that percursor material was there, the basic equipment was there, the expertise was there. First, there's no mention in Kay's report of Saddam posessing precursor material. There is a single mention of attempts to aquire some, but no evidence stating any such material exists. We continue to follow leads on Iraq's acquisition of equipment and bulk precursors suitable for a CW program. Several possibilities have emerged and are now being exploited. It does not take a lot to make WMD if you have the hard parts in place and only lack the opportunity to assemble it all in a safe place undisturbed. That's a big if, and certainly one that was beyond Saddam's grasp, given that most of his production and research and development facilities were destroyed in the 13 years since Gulf War 1 (a fact you continue to bypass, despite being confirmed by Ritter, Blix and even former WMD program head Hussein Kamal, who defected in 1995). In other words the desire was there-there's no doubt Iraq explored clandestine means of developing WMD-but the means to do so was not there. Kay's report is long on speculation and suggestiveness, but short on anything indicating Iraq would have the actual means to assemble a viable WMD program, especially since there was no indication UN sanctions would have been lifted any time in the near future. the sanctions would have outlived Hussein, were it not for the invasion. Some exerpts: (Iraq had) a clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service," including equipment suitable for continuing CBW [chemical and biological weapons] research. This says nothing about CBW development or production or deployment, and proves nothing about whether the equipment was actually intended or designed for CBW purposes. Iraq explored the possibility of CW production in recent years. There is no indication Iraq went any further. Of course, as I said before, any country, with time, access to production facilities and amterials, could whip up a CW program. there's no evidence to indicate Iraq had the means to do so. I could go on, but we have a general picture here of the situation. -Iraq's WMD production facilities and stock piles were destroyed after the 1991 war. (Ritter, Rolf Ekeus, Hussein Kamal) -Iraq maintained a minimum of documentation and some materials that could have been used to restart a WMD program, provided UN sanctions were lifted. (Kay) Your entire case hinges on what could generously be termed speculation and can be summe dup thusly: Iraq had the potential to become a threat at some unspecified point in the future provided sanctions were lifted and he had the opportunity to pursuse, unhindered and unobserved, WMD development which could then possibly be used to threaten to his neighbors and give Iraq an "unreasonable and dangerous influence" on the region and the whole world. Maybe. Foreign policy by Ouija board. They never said that it was an imminent threat. You threw out all this irrefutable evidence in quotes but none of them said that. Do you understand semantics? How about spin? Context?Do you not grasp that the statements we both cited may not have explicitly used the term "imminent threat", but were designed to create the impression thjat Iraq was an imminent threat that needed to be dealt with? It's called disinformation. - Democracy Seeding, they had to give the brain candy out to the idiots because here we are and even a smart guy like you can’t figure out that’s the intent much less get behind it to support you country to go to war. So you you have no problem with a government misleading its own people and using the threat of terrorism and the memory of 9-11 in order to force what would otherwise have been an immensely unpopular venture upon them? To this day, huge numbers of Americans still believe that Iraq was connected to 9-11 and that WMD were found. That's the effect of the Bush administrations disinformation campaign. As for what I belived: I never believed in WMD. I certainly don't buy the democracy angle either. I've read the work of the PNAC policy hacks (which you seem to ignore) tio see through the B.S. Permission? At best it was a yellow light with a recommendation that he try to seek an ‘Arab Solution’ with his brothers in Egypt, Saudi and Syria. I wonder, when a half million armed-to-the-teeth coalition forces opposed him did he still figure he had permission or would that not have been a fairly clear signal that he didn’t? Nowhere did I say he had permission. You completely made that up. Anyway, here's the transcript of U.S. ambassador April Glaspie's meeting with Saddam immediately prior to the invasion of Kuwait. Glaspie. - July 25, 1990 (Eight days before the August 2, 1990 Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait)July 25, 1990 - Presidential Palace - Baghdad U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - I have direct instructions from President Bush to improve our relations with Iraq. We have considerable sympathy for your quest for higher oil prices, the immediate cause of your confrontation with Kuwait. (pause) As you know, I lived here for years and admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. We know you need funds. We understand that, and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. (pause) We can see that you have deployed massive numbers of troops in the south. Normally that would be none of our business, but when this happens in the context of your threat s against Kuwait, then it would be reasonable for us to be concerned. For this reason, I have received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship - not confrontation - regarding your intentions: Why are your troops massed so very close to Kuwait's borders? Saddam Hussein - As you know, for years now I have made every effort to reach a settlement on our dispute with Kuwait. There is to be a meeting in two days; I am prepared to give negotiations only this one more brief chance. (pause) When we (the Iraqis) meet (with the Kuwaitis) and we see there is hope, then nothing will happen. But if we are unable to find a solution, then it will be natural that Iraq will not accept death. U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - What solutions would be acceptab le? Saddam Hussein - If we could keep the whole of the Shatt al Arab - our strategic goal in our war with Iran - we will make concessions (to the Kuwaitis). But, if we are forced to choose between keeping half of the Shatt and the whole of Iraq (i.e., in Saddam s view, including Kuwait ) then we will give up all of the Shatt to defend our claims on Kuwait to keep the whole of Iraq in the shape we wish it to be. (pause) What is the United States' opinion on this? U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America. The link. Ah, now I get it. He was a poor victim. He only killed millions because he had a bad childhood and was misunderstood? Sure, he had money problems Black Dog but why? Because he was spending it all on weapons for crying out loud! Spending it all on keeping his power schemes together. Is your position really so weak that you have to continue to attribute statements to me that I never made in some attempt to paint me as a Hussein sympathizer instead of someone seeking put a historical context on a current situation? Iraq was mostly bankrupt as a result of its long and bloody war with Iran. If he had a few usable nukes and aimed them at Israel, Saudi and Kuwait and walked into Jordan with Chemical Weapons there wouldn’t be much action happening there. Who would you shoot without taking out your allies? More ifs and maybes based on guesses and speculation. We both agree that he was no imminent threat but I believe he was an opportunity to move into the ME and seed some democracy using legal means and what the US thought would be backing from the Arab world and complete cooperation from the people of Iraq. What of the other instances I mentioned, where the U.S. could have use dpolitical and economic power to leverage democratic reforms within states allied to them? If democracy was really the goal, that would be the strategy that would have made the most sense and would certainly have been less costly. As it is, pretty much all the predictions made by the supporters of this war (that WMD would be found, that America would be met as liberators, that the Arab world would support the invasion) have been wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KrustyKidd Posted May 13, 2004 Report Share Posted May 13, 2004 First, there's no mention in Kay's report of Saddam posessing precursor material. There is a single mention ofattempts to aquire some, but no evidence stating any such material exists. Black Dog, in order to understand what is going on you have to remember that Iraq had 12 years to get rid of this stuff and to ensure they were in compliance with 14 resolutions. Did they take them seriously? Did they adhere to the UN and cleanse themselves of WMD and related activity like they were bound to by the ceasefire agreement of 1991? If so, NOTHING SHOULD HAVE BEEN FOUND. NOTHING. Not one experiment, not one dual purpose chemical, lag, equipment, scientist working on a related project, and the only dopcuments should have been rrecords of destruction of all this material. Instead, it’s record and prooof of ongoing activity, attemps to develop, buy, deceive and preserve the capability to reconstitute their program. Abything but compliance. Blix's Report I might further mention that inspectors have found at another site a laboratory quantity of thiodiglycol, a mustard gas precursor After twelve years this stuff is still popping up. KAYS REPORT We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. He didn’t say that he found the car keys Saddam lost, he found dozens of WMD related activities. * Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons. There you go BD. WMD relaterd material again in a country that shouldn’t have anything. One noteworthy example is a collection of reference strains that ought to have been declared to the UN. Among them was a vial of live C. botulinum Okra B. from which a biological agent can be produced. This discovery - hidden in the home of a BW scientist - illustrates the point I made earlier about the difficulty of locating small stocks of material that can be used to covertly surge production of deadly weapons. The scientist who concealed the vials containing this agent has identified a large cache of agents that he was asked, but refused, to conceal. ISG is actively searching for this second cache. Take home work again. A deadly virus. Nothing sinister going on there? * New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN. Gee, thought they had given up on development of WMD? * Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists' homes, that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS). But Saddam wasn’t trying to get nukes like the US said. Why would he be interested in this? * A line of UAVs not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 km, 350 km beyond the permissible limit. A delivery system for what? Flowers? Candy? * A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW agents, that Iraqi officials working to prepare for UN inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN. Why? They had no WMD or RELATED MATERIAL, EQUIPMENT OR FACILITIES, why would they not declare that to the UN? * Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited SCUD variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told to conceal from the UN. Oh, ‘don’t declare this to the UN It’s perfectly legal but whatever you do, don’t let the UN know.’ * Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1000 km - well beyond the 150 km range limit imposed by the UN. Missiles of a 1000 km range would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets through out the Middle East, including Ankara, Cairo, and Abu Dhabi. * Clandestine attempts between late-1999 and 2002 to obtain from North Korea technology related to 1,300 km range ballistic missiles --probably the No Dong -- 300 km range anti-ship cruise missiles, and other prohibited military equipment. But I thought they wern’t allowed to have missiles capable to reach over 150 km? Why would they try to get stuff that the UN said they were not allowed to have and that nullify the ‘91 ceasefire? With regard to biological warfare activities, which has been one of our two initial areas of focus, ISG teams are uncovering significant information - including research and development of BW-applicable organisms, the involvement of Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) in possible BW activities, and deliberate concealment activities. All of this suggests Iraq after 1996 further compartmentalized its program and focused on maintaining smaller, covert capabilities that could be activated quickly to surge the production of BW agents. Black Dog, in order to make your argument this page should have been blank or Kay saying that he found nothing to indicate Iraq was working on any of this stuff. He didn’t. HERRE IS THE MORE UP TO DATE REPORT FROM DUEFLER The ISG has developed new information regarding Iraq’s dual-use facilities and ongoing research suitable for a capability to produce biological or chemical agents on short notice. Iraq did have facilities suitable for the production of biological and chemical agents needed for weapons. It had plans to improve and expand and even build new facilities. He didn’t go into detail but I am fairly sure he has his reasons for making a statement like that. With respect to chemical production, Iraq was working up to March 2003 to construct new facilities for the production of chemicals. There were plans under the direction of a leading nuclear scientist/WMD program manager to construct plants capable of making a variety of chemicals and producing a year’s supply of any chemical in a month. This was a crash program. Most of the chemicals specified in this program were conventional commercial chemicals, but a few are considered “dual use.” One we are examining, commonly called DCC (N,N-Dicyclohexyl carbodiimide), was used by Iraq before 1991 as a stabilizing agent for the nerve agent VX. Iraq had plans before OIF for large-scale production of this chemical. Again, what do these activities mean? Gee, imagine that, Saddam trying to produce WMD and related material even after all the UN resolutions, ceasefire agreements and all. For example, the Tuwaitha Agricultural and Biological Research Center has equipment suitable for the production of biological agents. While it conducts civilian research, ISG has also determined that it was conducting research that would be important for a biological weapons program. For example, we are continuing to examine research on Bacillus thuringiensis that was conducted until March 2003. This material is a commercial biopesticide, but it also can be used as a surrogate for the anthrax bacterium for production and weapons development purposes. Work continued on single cell proteins at Tuwaitha as well. Single cell protein research previously had been used as the cover activity for BW production at al-Hakam. Likewise, in the nuclear arena, the ISG has developed information that suggests Iraqi interest in preserving and expanding the knowledge needed to design and develop nuclear weapons.One significant effort illustrating this was a high-speed rail gun program under the direction of two senior scientists associated with Iraq’s pre-1991 nuclear weapons program. Documents from this project show that the scientists were developing a rail gun designed to achieve speeds of 2-10 kilometers per second. The ostensible purpose for this research was development of an air defense gun, but these speeds are what are necessary to conduct experiments of metals compressing together at high speed as they do in a nuclear detonation. Scientists refer to these experiments as “equation of state” measurements. Not only were these scientists developing a rail gun, but their laboratory also contained documents describing diagnostic techniques that are important for nuclear weapons experiments, such as flash x-ray radiography, laser velocimetry, and high-speed photography. Other documents found outside the laboratory described a high-voltage switch that can be used to detonate a nuclear weapon, laser detonation, nuclear fusion, radiation measurement, and radiation safety. These fields are certainly not related to air defense. It is this combination of topics that makes us suspect this lab was intentionally focused on research applicable for nuclear weapons development. We continued our efforts to determine if Iraq was seeking to develop technologies for a uranium enrichment capability. Iraq’s efforts to procure high tolerance aluminum tubes were examined. Ostensibly these tubes were for small rockets, but the manufacturing tolerances specified were much higher than would normally be required for this purpose. Technical reasons for the high tolerances were explained by a number of Iraqis associated with their acquisition, but there are still a number of discrepancies to examine with regard to these tubes. Again, we need to determine what these activities mean. Here’s an idea Black Dog. You prove to me that none of this stuff is there and I will conceed that Saddam wan’t trying to revive his WMD program once sanctions were lifted and the Coalition left the area. In the meantime, this is in your face obvious what he was doing. It’s called non-compliance and underhanded deciet. Delivery SystemsIn addition to WMD technologies, the ISG has continued to uncover a very robust program for delivery systems that were not reported to the UN. New information has been discovered relating to long-range ballistic missile development and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs). Missiles and UAVs were flight tested that easily exceeded the UN limit of 150 kilometers. More than that, the Iraqi regime was developing technology to extend one of their ballistic missile’s range beyond 150 kilometers with changes to airframes and fuels. Discussions were underway with North Korea regarding technology associated with a 1,300 km system—presumably the No Dong. Other foreign support was being used or solicited. A variety of foreign companies with high-level political connections acted as middlemen to import technology into Iraq for missile and UAV development. These actions clearly violated UN sanctions. OMG! Saddam in violation. What happened? Who put that stuff there? US again, trying to frame him. Foreign technology and technical assistance were critical to the progress made by Iraqi engineers and designers. Foreign missile experts worked in Iraq in violation of UN sanctions from 1998 until just before the start of OIF. They undertook a complete review of the al-Samoud surface-to-surface missile system, which exceeded UN range limits. Based on this technical assistance, Iraq determined the original al-Samoud concept was not optimal and changed the production process to incorporate the new design information. Contracts were concluded calling for foreign firms to produce several major al-Samoud subsystems. Oh, in violation. That word and that stuff keeps on bubbling to the surface. When we get this dealt with I will move on with the rest of your post. As for now, tell me that all this means that Saddam had peaceful intent and that none of this exists. You provide some proof please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted May 13, 2004 Report Share Posted May 13, 2004 Black Dog, in order to understand what is going on you have to remember that Iraq had 12 years to get rid of this stuff and to ensure they were in compliance with 14 resolutions. Did they take them seriously? Did they adhere to the UN and cleanse themselves of WMD and related activity like they were bound to by the ceasefire agreement of 1991? If so, NOTHING SHOULD HAVE BEEN FOUND. NOTHING. Not one experiment, not one dual purpose chemical, lag, equipment, scientist working on a related project, and the only dopcuments should have been rrecords of destruction of all this material. Instead, it’s record and prooof of ongoing activity, attemps to develop, buy, deceive and preserve the capability to reconstitute their program. Abything but compliance. But were these violations serious enough to constitute an unprcedented shift in interantional relations (preemptive war)? Ritter again: I believe the primary problem at this point is one of accounting. Iraq has destroyed 90 to 95% of its weapons of mass destruction. Okay. We have to remember that this missing 5 to 10% doesn’t necessarily constitute a threat. It doesn’t even constitute a weapons programme. It constitutes bits and pieces of a weapons programme which, in its totality, doesn’t amount to much, but which is still prohibited. Likewise, just because we can’t account for it, doesn’t mean Iraq retains it. There is no evidence that Iraq retains this material. That is the quandary we are in. We can’t give Iraq a clean bill of health, therefore we can’t close the book on its weapons of mass destruction. But simultaneously we can’t reasonably talk about Iraqi non-compliance as representing a de facto retention of a prohibited capability worthy of war. How do we deal with this uncertainty? There are those who say that because there are no weapons inspectors in Iraq today, because Iraq has shown a proclivity to acquire these weapons in the past and use these weapons against their neighbours and their own people, and because Iraq has lied to weapons inspectors in the past, we have to assume the worst. Under this rubric, a pre-emptive strike is justified. If this were argued in a court of law, the weight of evidence would go the other way. Iraq has, in fact, demonstrated over and over a willingness to cooperate with weapons inspectors. Mitigating circumstances surround the demise of inspections and the inconclusive or incomplete nature of the mission, by which I mean Iraq’s failure to be certified as fully disarmed. Those seeking to implement these resolutions - for example, the United States - actually violated the terms of the resolutions by using their unique access to operate inside Iraq in a manner incompatible with Security Council resolutions, for example, by spying on Iraq. (emphasis mine) Here’s an idea Black Dog. You prove to me that none of this stuff is there and I will conceed that Saddam wan’t trying to revive his WMD program once sanctions were lifted and the Coalition left the area. DId I ever deny Saddam had WMD programs? Did I deny that he wouldn't revive them if he could? No. Once again, you're misrepresenting my arguments to bolster your own. My point was that, in spite of non-compliance, inspite of all the niggling over "Weapons of mass destruction-related program activities" ( a far cry from the "stockpiles" that were cited repeatedly prior to the invasion), Saddam did not pose a immediate threat to the west or his neighbours and was not likely to become one at any point in the near future. Based on this, a preemptive war outside the mandate of the United Nations, was unecessary and, ultimately wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KrustyKidd Posted May 13, 2004 Report Share Posted May 13, 2004 But were these violations serious enough to constitute an unprcedented shift in interantional relations (preemptive war)? 12 years Black Dog and you also agree with me that Saddam had every intent on reviving his WMD program. At what point do you think that he might become a threat? When he has a lot, some, a few, not many what? HE WASN'T SUPPOSED TO HAVE ANY AT ALL! Not one vial, not one missile with capability of over 150 km and was bound to cooperate with the UN inspectors. If you wish, I can show you how he was in breach with the cooperation part and give you UN reports of his threats to the lives of the inspectors and so on. Heck, there is even an instance of a translator trying to take over the controls of a UNMOVIC helecopter that got orders to do a snap inspection of a second facility. All weree breaches of the resolutions. One or two is only one or two. A little only kills a few. Where is your threshold in WMD and material breaches of resolutions? One vial? One missile engine? A hundred? A thousand? I know what the UN's threshold was -- NONE. Placed properly and in the hands of another who hates America as much as he it would be deadly. And when, if not then would be an opportune time to take him out? When he has a lot? A few? How about now when the world thought he had a lot and when he clearly was trying to get more than what he had? Saddam did not pose a immediate threat to the west or his neighbours and was not likely to become one at any point in the near future. Based on this, a preemptive war outside the mandate of the United Nations, was unecessary and, ultimately wrong. Yes of course, and you have 14 resolutions to back that belief up? Heck, scince he was harmless, why make any resolutions at all? As for outside the mandate, it was all well withing the mandate. I showed you that one as well. HERE IT IS Heck, even the French knew it was legal. In an effort to avoid a bitter US-French row, the French officials suggested that if the US was intent on war, it should not seek the second resolution, according to highly placed US sources cited by Vanity Fair.Instead, the two said that the first resolution on Iraq, 1441, passed the previous year, provided enough legal cover for war and that France would keep quiet if the US went to war on that basis. The deal would suit the French by maintaining its "good cop" status in the Arab world and safeguarding Franco-US relations. But the deal died when Tony Blair led a doomed attempt to secure a second resolution to try to satisfy Labour MPs and government lawyers who questioned the legitimacy of the war. France ultimately vetoed the resolution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted May 13, 2004 Report Share Posted May 13, 2004 HE WASN'T SUPPOSED TO HAVE ANY AT ALL! I'm aware of that. My point remains as above: Saddam did not pose a immediate threat to the west or his neighbours and was not likely to become one at any point in the near future. Placed properly and in the hands of another who hates America as much as he it would be deadly. And when, if not then would be an opportune time to take him out? When he has a lot? A few? How about now when the world thought he had a lot and when he clearly was trying to get more than what he had? If he were to develop WMD, and continue his violations of UN resolutions, the international community could act, provided his accusers could demonstrate that the breach was serious enough to warrant miliary action. Prior to last March, his deceit and non-compliance were deemed sufficient to waarrant another esolution (1441), but that did not authorize immediate use of force, nor did it automatically authorize unilateral military action to effect regime change in Iraq. Yes of course, and you have 14 resolutions to back that belief up? Heck, scince he was harmless, why make any resolutions at all? As for outside the mandate, it was all well withing the mandate. I showed you that one as well. HERE IT IS Here's another view. Despite U.S. claims over the years that resolutions subsequent to Resolution 687 haveprovided the basis for U.S. use of force against Iraq, the Bush administration is now seeking a new resolution authorizing use of force should Iraq continue to fail to comply with Security Council requirements. Practically speaking, then, the Bush administration accepts that existing resolutions do not authorize use of force. 1441 only warned of "serious consequenses". What those consequenses would have been would have been up to the Security Council. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KrustyKidd Posted May 13, 2004 Report Share Posted May 13, 2004 Got to ask this one; has any world body charged the US for violating international law? Has the world body made a resolution condeming the US action? I imagine if it was not legal then they would have. Just a theory I thought I would throw out. 1441 only warned of "serious consequenses". What those consequenses would have been would have been up to the Security Council. Not quite, it also said this Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area, "All necessary means" except the use of force? What would this mean Black Dog. All necessary means. The guy is under sanctions, has a hundred thousand foreign troops ready to pounce and the UN says that Member States Assisting the Government of Kuwait can "use all necessary means." I have got to hear how you interpret that. Cutting off his milk delivery? Suspending his Playboy subscription? What? And don't forget about the "All subsequent resolutions." part? ALL. 687 Deploring threats made by Iraq during the recent conflict to make use of terrorism against targets outside Iraq and the taking of hostages by Iraq, But they were a danger to nobody according to many. Guess the UN was wrong. Here is 1441 Recognizing the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security, Gee, the UN thought Saddam was a threat. Apparently, they didn't get you fax saying he wasn't. The stuff is interesting if you get into it and cross reference it. The UN acknowleges that Iraq supports and promotes terrorism and awhole lot more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted May 13, 2004 Report Share Posted May 13, 2004 I see were getting down to the nitty-gritty legalise. As such, I'll keep letting the lawyers do the talking: It was under Chapter VII that in 1990 the Security Council by Resolution 678 authorized all “necessary means” to eject Iraq from Kuwait and to restore international peace and security in the area. Following the formal cease-fire recorded by Resolution 687 in 1991, there has been no Security Council resolution that has clearly and specifically authorized theuse of force to enforce the terms of the cease-fire, including ending Iraq’s missile and chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs. Such a resolution is required for renewed use of force. It is the Security Council that has assumed responsibility regarding Iraq, and it must be the Security Council that decides, unambiguously and specifically, that force is required for enforcement of its requirements. Past Security Council resolutions authorizing use of force employed language universally understood to do so, regarding Korea in 1950 (prior to General Assembly action, Security Council Resolution 83 recommended that UN member states provide "such assistance to the Republic of Korea as may be necessary to repel the armed attack and to restore international peace and security in the area"), and Kuwait, Somalia, Haiti, Rwanda, and Bosnia in the 1990s ("all necessary means" or "all measures necessary"). 1441 was not that resolution. The "all necessary force" quote was in reference to the text of 678. Th eonly mention of the consequenses for violating the extensive term sof 1441 was at the end: 13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations; However, what those consequenses were would be determined by another meeting of the UNSC. 12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security; Again, previous resolutions vis a vis Kuwait were no longer valid, as coalition states still required SC approval before resuming hositilites. Furthermore, the argument can be made that 687 was further breached by the U.S. and UK when intelligence operatives were passed off as UN weapons inspectors. Link This itself constituted a "violation of a provision essential to the accomplishment of the object or purpose of the treaty" (as set down in the ceasefire). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KrustyKidd Posted May 13, 2004 Report Share Posted May 13, 2004 It was under Chapter VII that in 1990 the Security Council by Resolution 678 authorized all “necessary means” to eject Iraq from Kuwait and to restore international peace and security in the area. Following the formal cease-fire recorded by Resolution 687 in 1991, there has been no Security Council resolution that has clearly and specifically authorized theuse of force to enforce the terms of the cease-fire, including ending Iraq’s missile and chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs. Such a resolution is required for renewed use of force. No, it was not only reffered to but said that it was still in effect. 1441 was not that resolution. The "all necessary force" quote was in reference to the text of 678. Th eonly mention of the consequenses for violating the extensive term sof 1441 was at the end: 1441 does not stand on it's own. That is why it refers to and mentions that it upholds the rulings in the other resolutions and even spells out the resolutions in order to ensure that somebody doesn't think that they were forgotten or that they were no longer relevent and so that there is no ambiguity. Thus, they become part of that resolution. Told you, in order to usderstand these things you have to go back and forth in a big way. They are all conected. Saddam did not pose a immediate threat to the west or his neighbours and was not likely to become one at any point in the near future. And the US under the afore mentions resolutions ensured that he did not become an 'imminent threat'. Would you have preffered to attack him ten years from now when he had a few nukes? Black Dog If he were to develop WMD, and continue his violations of UN resolutions, the international community could act, provided his accusers could demonstrate that the breach was serious enough to warrant miliary action. If. You can't make war on an if yet you can make peace on an if? Read the resolutions, read the finding of UNMOVIC, ISG and tell me that he obeyed the resolutions and then ikeep on giving us 'IFS' Fact is, the guy was dangerous to a lot of people in a lot of countries, no matter what, the world is better off without him. No "IF ANDS ABOUT IT." Prior to last March, his deceit and non-compliance were deemed sufficient to waarrant another esolution (1441), but that did not authorize immediate use of force, nor did it automatically authorize unilateral military action to effect regime change in Iraq. Well what you should do is get together with all the people that don't know how to read a UN resolution "all necessary action" and write one that says "autorized to make another resolution" "and another" "and another until the cows come home or a mushroom cloud errupts in a city somewhere." They would bring it to some emotionally yet reality challenged UN council somewhere in a corner of the fantasy world and things will work their way in their head. In the real world, it is this way, Saddam played the UN and the US called him and the UN. A lot of people don't like it but they had a lot of years to work out another way. They didn't and this is what they got and now we all have to live with it. Personally, I wish Saddam had come clean a lot earlier and had done his duty as a leader of a nation of people. Brought them into the modern era using the wealth that was available to use to enrich thier lives. Truly Iraq under a clever, yet benevolent Saddam would have been among the most powerful and richest nations of the earth in both wealth and people. Saddam was not all bad you know. He enacted many social programs ahead of his contemporaries but in the end, his ego and soulessness turned him. I think that you Black Dog understand that Saddam, even if presented with an extension of the stus quo would still have continued the action he had made a habit of. I understand the frustration of being boxed into a situation where the only way out is violence. What disturbs me the most about this attitude of many is that they accuse the US only. On reflection they as usual were reactionary. Reactionary to the real evil which was not Saddam himself who was only doing what he always did but rather the people who from the outside watched as he did it and did nothing. Made rules that they allowed him to break time after time. So here we are, thirteen years after the Gulf War has been over and the guy never complied with the ceasefire. Somebody failed in a big way here. Who? The whole world knew what he was doing and assumed worse yet did nothing. When blame for this invasion goes around it should include the US yet also Saddam. However, the bulk of the fault goes to the UN which allowed this to go on for so long that it came to this, A question. Wherre do you think we would be with respect to Saddam and WMD if 9 11 never happened? As for not authorizing regime change I should think that when a country is simply an extension of a dictator due to the severe control an egotistical leader exerts, regime change is the only way to enact change that is imbedded into the core of the society. So in order to stop him from continuing his WMD work you would have to effect a regime change. That though, is another argument completely, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.