Iraq And Wmd's

[RScott]

As reported on CNN

Weapons inspectors in Iraq have found evidence of a biological weapons program and more substantial activity in the production of missiles than Iraq had disclosed to the United Nations, former U.N. weapons inspector David Kay said at a news briefing Thursday afternoon after he met with congressional intelligence committees

So there you have it, was it enough to go to war and topple the Iraq Government?

Would Saddam have used these WMD's? Damm Right he would of.

[Craig Read]

Certainly he would of. He did a few times. He was waiting for the UNO to leave Iraq, and resume his oil production and revenue enhancement. With such monies he would have resumed building the WMD.

The costs of containment over time make no economic sense. At some point for humanitarian, security and geo-political reasons he had to go. A summary from Kay's report:

The 12½-page summary outlines extensive indications that Saddam wanted to build such weapons but had failed to do so.

      According to the summary, inspectors have found:

A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses suitable for chemical weapons research.

A prison laboratory complex possibly used in human testing of biological weapons agents.

New research on biological weapons agents that had not been declared to the United Nations.

Documents and equipment hidden in scientists’ homes.

Clandestine attempts from late 1999 to 2002 to obtain ballistic missile technology from North Korea.

A line of unmanned artillery vehicles that had not been fully declared to the United Nations. The report characterizes the vehicles as proof that Secretary of State Colin Powell was correct in his claim in a U.N. speech in February that Iraq had installed missile components at al-Rashid Air Force Base.

[Nuclear]

Last I heard they were still in the process of searching and despite small finds here and there, I think the motherload is still out here under the sand and we jsut need to be patient.

Whatever is under the sand, the views are this:

Let's say there is, and never was WMD:

Repubs: We go to war anyhow, topple a corrupt regime and give the Iraqis their freedom.

Libs: We don't go to war, and nothing ever happens.

Let's say there is WMD and we just a have to find it:

Repubs: We topple the regime, give the people their freedom, and most importantly, we prevent the risk of a terror attack that could claim millions of Americans or other allies.

Libs: We do nothing. DC or NYC have a mushroom cloud over them and 9-11 looks like nothing.

I believe there is WMD out there in the desert of Iraq, but WMD or not, we made the right decision.

I also heard somewhere that Saddam made up the WMD to try and 'scare' the Americans out of attacking. He thought we'd cower and not attacks because he had WMD....if anything, it encouraged us. We are not cowards.

[Synon]

So there you have it, was it enough to go to war and topple the Iraq Government?

Not at all. The American people are still asking "Where are the weapons?" and they aren't getting any answers, it's a shame too, Bush seemed so sure(snicker). If Saddam had any kind of functional artillary he would have used it against already, don't you think? If I was going to have my country taken from me I'd put up a hell of a fight and use everything I've got, it's only logical.

We went into Iraq to find weapons of mass destruction, not topple a corrupt regime. Saying we never found any weapons but we did something good in in the end is no excuse for the loss of our brothers, we went to war for one main reason, weapons, not the regime. Sure, I think it's great to help the world, I have no problem with that, but to hell with that if I have to put my fellow American's lives on the line. It's not worth it, if it is, then why don't you risk YOUR life and come back saying it was worth it.

Nuclear, that's fine if you want to tell your side, but you have no right to say what the liberals would do. For all you know we could be eating cake in a hot air balloon, but that's besides the point, putting words in other peoples mouths isn't going to make your argument any more valid.

[Black Dog]

So there you have it, was it enough to go to war and topple the Iraq Government?

Would Saddam have used these WMD's? Damm Right he would of.

Since you're able to tell the future, can you clue me into next week's lottery numbers?

The position above requires a few large leaps of logic.

1) That Saddam would have been able to develop weapons programs of significant magnitude as to pose a direct threat to the U.S.

2) That Saddam would then use said weapons, despite the fact that such use would virtually guarantee his destruction.

3) There's allso the view that Saddam could sell WMD to terrorists. Notwithstanding the fact that there are plenty of other countries who could perform the same task, you also have to assume some idealogical compatability between secular-socialist Saddam and Islamic militants like Al Q'aeda when no such link has been demonstrated (giving money to the families of suicide bombers is not in the same ball park as selling someone a nuke to use on NYC).

Sorry, but "programs" doesn't cut it. The war was prosecuted on the basis of Iraq having emmense stockpiles of WMD that could be turned against the west at a moment's notice (Tobey Blair's "45 minutes"). Without the threat of WMD, the war is shown to be exatcly what it's been all a long: an imperial adventure to secure a regional power base, put Iraqi oil resources under U.S. control and provide new opportunities for U.S. corporations.

[FastNed]

Synon, perhaps you should check your facts (instead of the Media) before you put words in someone's mouth. How about exactly what President Bush stated at the UN in September, 2002.

"The history, the logic and the facts lead to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein 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."

"The first time we may be completely certain he has nuclear weapons is when, God forbid, he uses one. We owe it to all our citizens to do everything in our power to prevent that day from coming."

The process is called "Threat Assessment" and it is a necessary exercise if you wish to survive. When the danger from inaction in the face of a threat exceeds the danger from action, it is time to act. If you, Synon. announce that you are my enemy and wish me dead, I am not about to loose much sleep over it. If you then display your support for terrorists who have attacked in my neighborhood, you raise your threat level to one which I will not live with, and I will take you out which is exactly what we did to Saddam.

Leave no live enemy behind!

[Craig Read]

Exactly, I love the liberals - do nothing - get attacked and then apologise to those who try to kill you for inciting them.

Logical.

Nuclear is right - pre-emption is valid, when national security is at stake. It is indeed about 9-11.

[Black Dog]

The process is called "Threat Assessment" and it is a necessary exercise if you wish to survive. When the danger from inaction in the face of a threat exceeds the danger from action, it is time to act. If you, Synon. announce that you are my enemy and wish me dead, I am not about to loose much sleep over it. If you then display your support for terrorists who have attacked in my neighborhood, you raise your threat level to one which I will not live with, and I will take you out which is exactly what we did to Saddam.

That's the point though: they have not demonstrated that Saddam was a threat to America. There's no links between Saddam and Al Q'aeda, so iraq has never attacked "your neigbourhood".

I can't just break into your house, kill you and your family and steal your stuff because I think you might *someday* do the same to me. That's what the U.S did in Iraq.

[Lost in Manitoba]

BD, thats an extreme way of looking at it, though there is some merit to the argument.

I see it in a different way. The international community must stand firm on democracy. If we don't recognize that democracy is a 'god-given right' (or however you prefer to put it) than we are saying the regimes of dictators and despots are legitimate governments. We have international standards of human rights (many countries don't follow them) but we don't enforce, millitarily or economically, the right of people to choose their own gov't. Why are we, the democratic countries of the world, doing business with unelected royal families, or non-democratic communist countries? If the citizens of a country wish to have a communist gov't, and vote them in, then and only then is it legitimate. Same goes for royal families, or millitary rulers. And that these countries are allowed to be a part of the UN, seriously troubles me.

Also, I find this is the part of capitalism that is hard to swallow: the greed factor. Why isn't there an economic sanction plan against China until it shows a move, no matter how slow, towards a democratic society? Is it because of the billion consumers of western products? hmm...

[Black Dog]

I see it in a different way. The international community must stand firm on democracy. If we don't recognize that democracy is a 'god-given right' (or however you prefer to put it) than we are saying the regimes of dictators and despots are legitimate governments. We have international standards of human rights (many countries don't follow them) but we don't enforce, millitarily or economically, the right of people to choose their own gov't. Why are we, the democratic countries of the world, doing business with unelected royal families, or non-democratic communist countries?

It's called realpolitik: a cynical policy of selective support for certain states out of consideration for short-term political or economic gain. Prop up a dictator today, knock 'em down tomorrow: it's a policy that reflects the "ends justify the means" thinking that exists in the highest levels of Western governments. Hell, you see it on this board every day.

This is one of things that especially troubles me about the Iraq situation. The West has a long track record (which continues to this day) of stifling democracy in the region by supporting repressive, authoritarian regimes. now we're expected to believe they can, almost overnight, "impose" democracy on Iraq? By fostering the ruling powers of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, we've undermined our own credibility.

If the citizens of a country wish to have a communist gov't, and vote them in, then and only then is it legitimate. Same goes for royal families, or millitary rulers. And that these countries are allowed to be a part of the UN, seriously troubles me.

So how should these nations be represented? Is isolation from the world community really going to foster change?

[RScott]

So there you have it, was it enough to go to war and topple the Iraq Government?

Would Saddam have used these WMD's? Damm Right he would of.

Since you're able to tell the future, can you clue me into next week's lottery numbers?

The position above requires a few large leaps of logic.

1) That Saddam would have been able to develop weapons programs of significant magnitude as to pose a direct threat to the U.S.

2) That Saddam would then use said weapons, despite the fact that such use would virtually guarantee his destruction.

3) There's allso the view that Saddam could sell WMD to terrorists. Notwithstanding the fact that there are plenty of other countries who could perform the same task, you also have to assume some idealogical compatability between secular-socialist Saddam and Islamic militants like Al Q'aeda when no such link has been demonstrated (giving money to the families of suicide bombers is not in the same ball park as selling someone a nuke to use on NYC).

Sorry, but "programs" doesn't cut it. The war was prosecuted on the basis of Iraq having emmense stockpiles of WMD that could be turned against the west at a moment's notice (Tobey Blair's "45 minutes"). Without the threat of WMD, the war is shown to be exatcly what it's been all a long: an imperial adventure to secure a regional power base, put Iraqi oil resources under U.S. control and provide new opportunities for U.S. corporations.

People still don't get it. Did Saddam not go in rape and pilliage a peacefull loving nation. Did he not use WMD against the Kurds in is own country Killing 1000's. Is there not evidence of WMD program as per Kay's report with pictures I might add.

SADDAM is another Hitler, has no regard for human life, even his own people. He wants to rid the world of Kurds! Where does he go from there. The rest of the Middle East, IRan? Germany? Russia? North America? No My friend the world is better off when they find Saddam and hang his scranny ass in the street for all the world to see.

They will find WMD in Iraq, may take time but they will find them, if not have the CIA plant them there.

The war was just!

War is tragedy and it's the ultimate sacrafice and my heart goes out to all who lost their lives fighting for fredom and justice.

The needs of the MANY far out weigh the needs of the few!

[d4dev]

"Is there not evidence of WMD program as per Kay's report with pictures I might add."

Is there? Well, you are mistaken then. Do you know the details of the "photographic evidence" that was shown to the Security Council?

"The highlights of Powell's presentation were communication intercepts and satellite photographs.The intercepts, he alleged, caught Iraqi functionaries discussing an effort to hide weapons. But other, less damning interpretations seemed more likely. In one recording that occurred four days after the discovery of 12 empty chemical warheads in a warehouse, two Iraqi officers discuss "the possibility there is, by chance, forbidden ammo" at another site and the need to "clean out all the areas, the scrap areas, the abandoned areas." Clearly, this does not refer to known stores of weapons. But it could reveal an intent to search for and retain any remaining weapons. Or it could reflect an intent to search for and discretely destroy them. Another possible interpretation is suggested by the fact that the conversation occurred on the same day that Iraq announced it had found four more empty warheads, which it promptly turned over to UNMOVIC.16

As for the photographs: they showed activity at known weapons sites. At some sites, decontamination vehicles, cranes, or cargo trucks were evident. This, Powell asserted, implied the presence of proscribed weapons—but none were actually shown or tracked. Again, alternative interpretations seemed equally or more plausible. Hans Blix concluded that the activity "could just as easily have been a routine activity."17 And, indeed, Secretary Powell qualified his statement by saying, "We don't know precisely what Iraq was moving." Nor, apparently, could he say to where Iraq was moving the unknown items—although the US ability to spy from the sky was otherwise quite impressive. Subsequently, Iraqi officials took journalists to one of the sites in Powell's photographs, the Al Musayyib missile facility, and explained that the photographed activity involved moving al-Samoud missiles, which were regularly rotated to and from the facility for testing and calibration.18 (The al-Samoud missile was later found to marginally exceed the permitted range. Iraq was in the process of destroying them under supervision when the war began.)

It is remarkable that Secretary Powell would openly state that "[w]e don't know precisely what Iraq was moving" in the context of making an argument for imposing serious consequences on Iraq—which no one doubted meant war. But the assertion fairly reflected his presentation as a whole, which served to raise suspicions about Iraq without settling them one way or the other.'

Note 16: Ian Fisher, "Iraq Discloses 4 Warheads In What Arms Inspector Calls 'Constructive' Talks," New York Times, 20 January 2003, p. 12; and, Julia Preston, Inspectors Find Empty Warheads in an Iraqi Depot, New York Times, 17 January 2003, p. 1. Also see analysis of intercepts in Glen Rangwala, Claims in Secretary of State Colin Powell's UN Presentation concerning Iraq, 5th Feb 2003, MiddleEastReference (20 February 2003); available at: Back

Note 17: "Key points: UN inspectors' report," BBC News Online, 17 February 2003. Back

Note 18: Rajiv Chandrasekaran, "Iraq Shows Facilities Cited by Powell; Missiles Within U.N.'s Limits, Officials Assert," Washington Post, 8 February 2003, p. 14

And if you are saying that the US went to war to rid the world of Saddam, that does not hold ground does it? Because that was not the case for war. The only case for war was oil, which the US could not state openly.

[RScott]

d4dev , I was talking abot the pictures released yesterday not the ones before the war started!!

[Black Dog]

People still don't get it. Did Saddam not go in rape and pilliage a peacefull loving nation. Did he not use WMD against the Kurds in is own country Killing 1000's. Is there not evidence of WMD program as per Kay's report with pictures I might add.

Saddam invaded Kuwait with the tacet approval of the U.S. and gassed the Kurds whil he was still a client of the Reagan administration. Context is everything. s I said above "programs" is not the same as the clear and present danger we were sold in the run up to war.

SADDAM is another Hitler, has no regard for human life, even his own people. He wants to rid the world of Kurds! Where does he go from there. The rest of the Middle East, IRan? Germany? Russia? North America? No My friend the world is better off when they find Saddam and hang his scranny ass in the street for all the world to see.

Exaggerate much? Saddam was a tin-pot, two-bit dictator cut from the same cloth as Suharto, Pinochet, the House of Saud and countless other fellow tin-pot, two-bit dictators the world over. His biggest crime was that he was sitting on the world's 2nd largest oil reserve.

They will find WMD in Iraq, may take time but they will find them, if not have the CIA plant them there.

The war was just!

If the war was just, why would the CIA need to perpatrate a fraud against the world by planting WMD?

War is tragedy and it's the ultimate sacrafice and my heart goes out to all who lost their lives fighting for fredom and justice.

Ah the old lie: dulce et decorum est pro patria mori.

The needs of the MANY far out weigh the needs of the few!

You've got it backwards. Iraq's invasion was about the needs of the few. It's the many (Iraqis and Americans alike) who will pay the price for years to come.

[RScott]

If the war was just, why would the CIA need to perpatrate a fraud against the world by planting WMD?

It was a joke dude, did you not see the smile next to it.

[RScott]

You've got it backwards. Iraq's invasion was about the needs of the few. It's the many (Iraqis and Americans alike) who will pay the price for years to come.

I don't think so, the world is better off without the Saddam Regime, and any other rogue nation that imposees it's will on there own and others without guilt or remorse.

The Price for freedom is huge but if it wasn't done, I guess we would all be Germans or exterminated.

[Black Dog]

I don't think so, the world is better off without the Saddam Regime, and any other rogue nation that imposees it's will on there own and others without guilt or remorse.

When you say "any other rogue nation that imposees it's will on there own and others without guilt or remorse", does that include the U.S?

Of course, I'm not saying the world ain't better off without that murderous tyrant Saddam. But for the west to preach freedom and democracy while continuing to support thugs and gangsters the world over is rank hypocrisy.

[Craig Read]

What is rank is your thinking pattern.

You equate cold war alliances and expedient relationships premised on defeating a common enemy as odious to the idea of freedom and Western liberty. The exact opposite is true. Balance of power in regions necessitated funding various parties. The Cold War is over. News Flash. We repeat. The Cold War is over.

Now new policies emerge from this base fact. Illiberal regimes are now being told to change. From Egypt to Indonesia the message is pretty clear - clean up your act.

As I posted on another thread, Syria and Jordan are suddenly behaving better - why ? Because they see that Iraq will be a western oriented democracy within 5 years. They are terrified it will happen to them.

What kills me about people like yourself is your snivelling. If the US went to Saudi Arabia and said "You have 1 yr to clean up your gov't, have a liberal press, stop the harassment of women, construct a liberal education system, reform your economy and open your markets", you would be the first one howling in pain on this web site about US Imperialism !

Now you decide that the US is not doing enough to stop the funding, through the UNO, NGOs and other international groups of regimes that are illiberal!!

You are rank and hypocritical.

[d4dev]

"If the US went to Saudi Arabia and said "You have 1 yr to clean up your gov't, have a liberal press, stop the harassment of women, construct a liberal education system, reform your economy and open your markets"

Hey Craig, Saudi Arabia is not a client state of the US and the US has not right to tell the Saudis that. That is what people hate about the US; it considers itself to be the nanny of the world! Can't the US stop poking it's nose into other people's affairs?

[d4dev]

"you would be the first one howling in pain on this web site about US Imperialism !"

Of course anyone would howl at this. What does the US think of itself anyway? :angry: If it thinks it can meddle in any country on earth it wants to, it's got to bear the consequences! No wonder the Al-Qaeda and thousands of Muslims across the Muslim world rose in arms against the US! And no wonder the same US that helped these Muslim fanatics drive the USSR away of Afghanistan is now hard pressed to eliminate them. Did you know Btw that Bin Laden fought the USSR during Afghanistan's occupation?

[Craig Read]

Tiny is dead btw. Yes apparently i knew he fought Russia, actually what i know is that he was the quartermaster for the resistance against the Russians. Did YOU know that ?

No.

Do you know what Al Qaeda means ? No i thought not.

It means the 'Base'.

Do you know how Tiny collected all his contacts for his war against the US ?

No i thought not.

As quartermaster in PAKISTAN he created a database of all the men there fighting the Russians who received supplies from the 'Base'.

Presto! Instance d.base of the world's most fanatical muslims.

Tiny did not fight in Afghanistan. I know this upsets the avid watcher of the Clinton News Network who believe the pictures of Tiny with AK47 strutting the hills, rubbing his beard and soberly assessing the Russian lines.

These pictures came long after the war ended when Tiny was training his madmen.

No Tiny was in Pakistan during the resistance collecting names.

Did YOU know that ?

I thought not.

You would rather live in a world of apologia and CNN news bites. Whatever action the US takes is bad.....fund bad regimes, ignore bad regimes, kill bad regimes...it matters not. In your little world it is all bad.... Nice outlook on life you have.

[RScott]

Ok I would agree that sometimes the US of A meddles into the affairs of other countries too much.

But if we never had a Superpower that supports freedom and basic human rights and liberties, where would this world be today.

It would be a commy world, no liberties, no freedoms, no basic human rights. Genocide would run rampant, another Hitler would evolve. Think about it!!!!

[Craig Read]

RS, the liberals view the US as the ENEMY. In their world view, any dominant power is bad, nefarious, corrupt and greedy. Any society that is wealthy is perforce morally crippled. Any nation that supports the freedom of 35 countries directly through its money, defence systems and markets is ergo an evil empire.

These apologists praised the Soviet Union as it murdered 35 million people, defended Mao as an agrarian reformer even as 30 million went under the knife, believe that Cuba is a bold experiment, and support dictators the world over as liberators of their national state.

They don't understand the basic premises of US power, its constitution, the morality that the US displays in its dealings with lesser powers, and the fact that the US is the most active contributor to UN and other international agencies that give relief to millions of poor the world over.

Criticism of the US can be done on concrete grounds. I criticise their mangement of international economics and i disagree with domestic spending, but these are specific, not generalisations, colored in racism so fondly posited by Canadian and European op ed writers. These general depictions are wrong, meaningless, and filled with hate and spite. They say more about the authors than the intended target. Something as significant as 9-11 totally escapes their capacity of comprehension.

[Derek]

Fanatic Liberalism=Socialism.

Liberals on the Far left of the spectrum, want everything to be equal so on and so forth. When you say we meddel in other countries affairs, we are doing that, mostly, for human rights. Also a little for the good of our nation.

The USA is the dominate "superpower" as of right now there is no others. We have to take care of the world because no one else will. I would call America a megapower not a superpower.

[nova_satori]

Yay, craig shows his ignorace again!

RS, the liberals view the US as the ENEMY. In their world view, any dominant power is bad, nefarious, corrupt and greedy. Any society that is wealthy is perforce morally crippled. Any nation that supports the freedom of 35 countries directly through its money, defence systems and markets is ergo an evil empire.

NO, Liberals view US foriegn policy and acts of aggression as the enemy, not the country. It's always amuzing how you leave out the horrible things America has done.

These apologists praised the Soviet Union as it murdered 35 million people,

Because EVERY LIBERAL IS THE SAME! Every conservative is the same! Thus everyone thinks in one of two IDENTICAL thought patterns. Stop with the sweeping generalizations that don't apply to anyone.

They don't understand the basic premises of US power, its constitution, the morality that the US displays in its dealings with lesser powers, and the fact that the US is the most active contributor to UN and other international agencies that give relief to millions of poor the world over.

That's bull. The US consitution and its "all men were created equal" was written by SLAVE HOLDERS. WHAT MORALITY? The US seeks to exploit other countries for its self interest, just as other countries do to everyone else. Just as the US exploits markets around the world, such as china, mexico does the same to the US. We HAVE NO morality with other countries. How about Belgium Congo? King LEOPOLD's skeleton the size of a brontosaurus that we helped create and hide? That was moral and ethical too right?

Lovely contridiction you just made there. You HATE the Un, think it should be either abolished or massively reformed, yet praise the US for giving to it. You call me a hypocrite when you are the supreme example of it.

These general depictions are wrong, meaningless, and filled with hate and spite. They say more about the authors than the intended target. Something as significant as 9-11 totally escapes their capacity of comprehension.

Yes, there wrong because Craig doesn't like anything that doesn't share his views! You have posted far more hateful and spiteful posts then most of Europe combined.

You miss the fundemental basis of 9/11 yourself. You shouldn't be talking.