BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 05:53 AM

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 05:57 AM

"The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. 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 tonnes. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for. "

Blix, Jan. 2003

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Gervase
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 06:19 AM

2. Show me ANY statement of this. The statement was that Saddam , with WMD , posed a real threat. All on his own. 9/11 just made some people aware that some problems needed to be dealt with, not swept under the rug as the Clinton administration had.
Try these...

Powell: "Iraqi officials deny accusations of ties with al-Qaida. These denials are simply not credible."
Powell again: ""These al Qaeda affiliates, based in Baghdad, now coordinate the movement of people, money and supplies into and throughout Iraq for his network, and they've been operating freely in the capital for more than eight months,"Cheney: Iraq was "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."
Geroge Tenet: "Iraq has, in the past, provided training in document forgery and bomb-making to al Qaeda. It has also provided training in poisons and gases to two al Qaeda associates."
Tenet again: ""We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al Qa'ida going back a decade,"

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Gervase
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 06:30 AM

...trouble is, you can argue with flat-earthers, creationists, neo-cons and similar until you're blue in the face. It doesn't seem to change anything.
These are people who would like to see the world in purely black and white terms - and the worrying thing is that the Bush administration is stuffed with them. What I do find astonishing is that so many people actually believe and respect these people and spend time and energy parroting their views on forums like this. Do they really expect us to swallow such crap just because some 'me too' conservative wannabee spends his time cutting and pasting? At least Coloin Powell had the grace and dignity to apologise.

To recap, however:
1: No WMDs in Iraq
2: No link between Saddam and 9/11
3: The Earth is round

Got that?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 08:15 AM

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 08:16 AM

Teribus - you ducked a simple assignment. Out of fear I believe.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 08:28 AM

Of course, it was outta fear, TIA...

T-The-Dog-Ate-My-Homework is long on assigning other folks homework, long on proclaimation, loong at CAPS, but short on backing up stuff when T-The-Avoider is asked to back up his proclaimations...

Sound familiar???

Lot like his hero, if ya' ask me...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Merde, alors!
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 01:19 PM

No, Teribus, not a personal attack. An observation. I've waded through enough of your posts to know that most of that bulk is goatfeathers and kapok padding. It LOOKS like you've done a lot of research, but it just doesn't bear out. Bloody waste of time!

But the sheer mass of it LOOKS impressive.........

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Arne
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 02:45 PM

From: GUEST
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 03:13 AM

(arne) "They didn't find them because there was nothing to find."

Now, THAT is unsupported opinion.

Nah. That's what MET Alpha found. That's what Kay said before resigning in disgust. That's what Duelfer and the ISG reported. That's what UNMOVIC basically said before Dubya had them kicked out. That's what Dubya has even said (and then joked about his little faux pas which has cost 2100+ U.S. soldiers and many more other people their lives). Granted, Dubya's prevaricated here and said both that WoMD were found and that there weren't any, but when he gets a pang of honesty or is off-guard, he sometimes lets the truth out. He's even recently come close to admitting a mistake in this respect (but in typical Republican manner of taking responsibility, foisted off culpability on someone else).

Clear now?

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 02:54 PM

So, uh, they found any WMDs yet?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 05:46 PM

"They didn't find them because there was nothing to find."

Now, THAT is unsupported opinion.

Nah. That's what MET Alpha found. That's what Kay said before resigning in disgust. That's what Duelfer and the ISG reported. That's what UNMOVIC basically said before Dubya had them kicked out. That's what Dubya has even said (and then joked about his little faux pas which has cost 2100+ U.S. soldiers and many more other people their lives). "





Now, this next point may be too subtle for you, Arne, but no-one has said that there was nothing to find- NO-ONE.

All that has been said was that we did not find any. By YOUR logic, since NO-ONE ever found ( for certain) Hitler's body, either he did not exit, or he did not die in WWII.

Lack of eveidence is NOT evidence of lack.

I QUOTED the UNMOVIC report- do you have some sort of reading problem?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Geoduck
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 06:17 PM

Once more for Arne with the vacuum packed brain:

The folowing quotes do not read "did":

"the allegation"

"pretty well confirmed"

"We have reporting"

"cited the possibility"

You are the one carrying on a propaganda campaign and it is not working.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 06:21 PM

You started it with a bullshit post.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 11:11 PM

Teribus,

As you requested:

And he'd probably read the front page Washington Post story ("U.S. Had Key Role in Iraq Buildup", 12/30/02) based upon recently declassified documents, which revealed that it was Rumsfeld himself who, as President Reagan's Middle East Envoy, had traveled to the Region to meet with Saddam Hussein in December 1983 to normalize, particularly, security relations.

At the time of the visit , Iraq had already been removed from the State Department's list of terrorist countries in 1982; and in the previous month, November, President Reagan had approved National Security Decision Directive 114, on expansion of U.S.-Iraq relations generally. But it was Donald Rumsfeld's trip to Baghdad which opened of the floodgates during 1985-90 for lucrative U.S. weapons exports--some $1.5 billion worth-- including chemical/biological and nuclear weapons equipment and technology, along with critical components for missile delivery systems for all of the above. According to a 1994 GAO Letter Report (GAO/NSIAD-94-98) some 771 weapons export licenses for Iraq were approved during this six year period....not by our European allies, but by the U.S. Department of Commerce.

http://www.rense.com/general35/rums.htm

On November 1 1983, the secretary of state, George Shultz, was passed intelligence reports of "almost daily use of CW [chemical weapons]" by Iraq.

However, 25 days later, Ronald Reagan signed a secret order instructing the administration to do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent Iraq losing the war.

In December Mr Rumsfeld, hired by President Reagan to serve as a Middle East troubleshooter, met Saddam Hussein in Baghdad and passed on the US willingness to help his regime and restore full diplomatic relations.

Mr Rumsfeld has said that he "cautioned" the Iraqi leader against using banned weapons. But there was no mention of such a warning in state department notes of the meeting.

Howard Teicher, an Iraq specialist in the Reagan White House, testified in a 1995 affidavit that the then CIA director, William Casey, used a Chilean firm, Cardoen, to send cluster bombs to use against Iran's "human wave" attacks.

A 1994 congressional inquiry also found that dozens of biological agents, including various strains of anthrax, had been shipped to Iraq by US companies, under licence from the commerce department.
Furthermore, in 1988, the Dow Chemical company sold $1.5m-worth (£930,000) of pesticides to Iraq despite suspicions they would be used for chemical warfare.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,866942,00.html

In 1984, according to The LA Times, the State Department—in the name of "increased American penetration of the extremely competitive civilian aircraft market"—pushed through the sale of 45 Bell 214ST helicopters to Iraq. The helicopters, worth some $200 million, were originally designed for military purposes. The New York Times later reported that Saddam "transferred many, if not all [of these helicopters] to his military."

In 1988, Saddam's forces attacked Kurdish civilians with poisonous gas from Iraqi helicopters and planes. U.S. intelligence sources told The LA Times in 1991, they "believe that the American-built helicopters were among those dropping the deadly bombs."

In response to the gassing, sweeping sanctions were unanimously passed by the US Senate that would have denied Iraq access to most US technology. The measure was killed by the White House.

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0802-01.htm

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Dec 05 - 03:06 PM

just to clarify something....BB is right when he says "Lack of eveidence is NOT evidence of lack.", that is, because we haven't found any, we can't conclude absolutely that there weren't any. But this is almost a trivial piece of 'rightness', since "there weren't any" is a good bet!
Not finding any after LOTS of looking by folks who are good at looking tends to lead credence to the idea that there were none to find. Offering rewards for info didn't lead to any, offering amnesty and a trip out of the country didn't lead to any, and interviews with some of Saddam's weapons experts suggested that he HAD tried and considered getting bigger weapons, but that only minimal progress had been made. Only a couple missles with 'technically' proscribed range were found.


oh, and by the way, Bruce...*grin*...as to Hitler's body they DID find a few bits

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 24 Dec 05 - 06:45 PM

BillD,

I stand corrected on Hitler's body.

Give it 54 years, and it might be recognized that some of what we have already found is evidence of WMD.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 04:44 PM

refresh

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 04:54 PM

why?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Lord Batman's Kitchener
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 04:59 PM

to cause trouble would be my best guess.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 05:31 PM

I'd guess it's just to 'suggest' that low grade yellowcake somehow counts as 'missed' WMDs

"well...well...Saddam 'might' have made something nasty with it, in 8-9 years and a lot of luck!!!!"

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 06:14 PM

"Saddam 'might' have made something nasty with it, in 8-9 years and a lot of luck"

Let me see... Ebbie says he had it in 1991, and we did not find it until 2003... 12 years.

So you imply that he had sufficient time to make WMDs


I point out that it was WMD PROGRAMS, not actual WMD that the UN and Bush were after- so this certainly qualifies.

I recall asking some years back exactly what would be considered sufficient proof of those programs, and there was no reply. I guess it has to be a moving goal, so you can always claim to "not have any evidence of the prohibited activities."


IRB Missiles- no
chemical warheads for artillary- no
Yellowcake ( that you said he did not have) - no
research teams working on nuclear weapons - no

I am going to guess that if they find a complete nuclear devices, ready to go, those here will complain that Saddam would not have used it, so it does not count as a WMD.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Stringsinger
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 06:34 PM

"New York Times best-selling author Richard Miniter" may be able to sell books like
a tabloid newspaper peddles its gossip.

The largest purveyor of WMD's being sold all over the world is the MIC of the US.

If any nuke weapons were even thought about being used in Iraq or Iran, the Bushites
would destroy those countries in a heartbeat.

This makes the whole idea of this book ridiculous.

The real issue is this....will Bush attack Iran? Seymour Hersh and others believe
that this is a real possibility.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Lord Batman's Kitchener
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 06:38 PM

"that if they find"

Big if, but I think it's something you'd love for someone to find, it'd justify your existence. It's simple the US had no business violating the borders of a sovereign nation (that is considered a war crime by the way)and has no business prolonging it's presence in Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 06:40 PM

durn, bruce...you can turn those hypotheticals you invent into full-blown conspiracies!

No...I don't 'imply' any such thing.

"...it was WMD PROGRAMS, not actual WMD ..." ????? .... I fail to see a serious distinction...and...I do NOT see how a pile of almost unusable low-grade uranium constitutes a 'program'. He might have had some hope for it once, but the point is, everyone who knew anything said that he had NO viable, dangerous programs going on that would justify an invasion!!

Trying to justify what Bush did by referring to that pile of crap is silly!

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 07:59 PM

A couple of articles putting the recent yellow cake shipment in context appeared a few days ago, but they've been overwhelmed by the more popular panic mongering and are all but impossible to find now.

One article stating the actual status of the transported yellow cake, that agrees with the SANE AND RATIONAL reports prior to the panic mongering is still up at:

Iraqi YelowCake

Quote:

Israeli warplanes bombed a reactor project at the site in 1981. Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said....

/Quote

Lets look at it again:

Quote:

U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, BEFORE THE 1991 GULF WAR

/Quote

The yellow cake that was recently transported to Canada:

Quote:

… which had been stored in aging drums and containers SINCE BEFORE THE 1991 GULF WAR.

***

THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF ANY YELLOWCAKE DATING FROM AFTER 1991

/Quote

The yellow cake in question was known to, and under supervision and control of, the UN SINCE BEFORE THE 1991 GULF WAR


It was never considered a "weapons threat" and could not have made even a "dirty bomb" of any significant effectiveness, although used in any kind of terrorist activity the slight detectable radiation could have spread panic or could have lent credibility (AMONG THE IGNORANT) to a terrorist claim of having used a nuclear weapon.

As it was under UN control, supervision, and inspection since before 1991, it CANNOT have been used credibly to support any "program" by the Iraqi government.

Secrecy in the recent transport was entirely to prevent any attempt to interfere with the shipment FOR PROPAGANDA PURPOSES, or to take any of this "icky stuff" FOR PROPAGANDA PURPOSES.


John

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 10:34 PM

☺

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 10:37 PM

(gee, I hope the large text is read & noticed by those who....ummmm...)

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 02:47 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here...
From: GUEST,Teribus - PM
Date: 15 Jun 04 - 10:42 AM


UNSCOM reported what WMD were in existence but unaccounted for in January 1999, that report was based on information supplied by the Iraqi authorities themselves. Did he have any significant WMDs at the time we invaded? His declaration of 7th December, 2002 didn't shed any light on that according to Dr. Hans Blix, who voiced his dissappointment at the content of that declaration. The "scrap metal in Holland" does tell us that equipment the Iraqi's should not have had had been moved out of the country by the Iraqi regime. Now if they moved "scrap metal", why is it so inconceivable that other things were not similarly exported? Oh yes! Nerd says that couldn't have happened because loads were examined for traces of radioactivity or explosives. A question for you Nerd, exactly what radioactive, or explosive trace signature would you expect to get from chemical/biological warfare agent, in either its weaponised or component form? I'll be interested in your response to that one.

According to the debriefing of Dr A. Q. Khan, he stated that he assisted with the removal of items transferred from Iraq to Syria and on to Pakistan by air - wonder exactly what that consisted of? What was Dr. Khan's area of expertise again? Could be we are not talking about anything that was radioactive here, what about computer hard drives, files, etc, relating to an Iraqi nuclear programme? Possible or not?

Whatever cock-eyed definition Nerd uses to describe what he would call WMD. Based upon what he contends they are not, I would say that you would have no WMD without research and development programmes, you would have no WMD without manufacturing facilities, you would have no WMD without the delivery systems.

And no Nerd, the bottom line to date is this:
- No nuclear weapons have been found and I don't think they will be. Whether or not there was a programme running to ressurect Iraq's nuclear programme is still open to question.
- Chemical/biological weapons in the form of unfilled munitions have been found by both UNMOVIC inspectors and Coalition Forces.
- Delivery system development programmes (post 1998) for proscribed weapons were discovered.
- Missiles that were prohibited by UNSC Resolutions were discovered by UNMOVIC.
- In the face of supposedly tight UN sanctions 384 illegally imported rocket motors were discovered by UNMOVIC.
- A shell, rigged as IED, containing Sarin was discovered by Coalition Forces.

In other words, while the stockpile of WMD agents, munitions and delivery systems as stated by UNSCOM have not been found. It is clear that items have been exported from Iraq during the run up to the invasion, the exact extent and nature of the complete list of items exported is not known at present.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: TIA
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 03:17 PM

Bruce - you say "I recall asking some years back exactly what would be considered sufficient proof of those programs, and there was no reply."

I remember you asking exactly that, and I specifically replied. Now I've just gotta go track it down...when I get a few minutes.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: TIA
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 03:21 PM

Voila!

http://www.mudcat.org/Detail.CFM?messages__Message_ID=1210161

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 03:44 PM

Weary Medical Doctors were found.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Lord Batman's Kitchener
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 03:45 PM

Wafflers Making Distractions?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 04:24 PM

What TIA posted:

Now to beardedbruce's question: "...what evidence would be acceptable...?" We were told repeartedly that if we did not invade Iraq, there would be a mushroom cloud over our heads, or unmanned drones would deliver chemical or biological weapons to our shores, or at least our allies, or Saddam would build and give nukes to Bin Laden. I would accept as evidence of a truly imminent danger from Iraqi W's of MD the discovery of facilities to make nasty stuff and/or relatively recent (not 10 or 20 year old) nasty stuff, and the vehicles to deliver it nearby and in working order. We were not told before the invasion that it was necessary because there were a few old Iran-Iraq war era chemical mortar rounds, and decrepit rocket parts, and trucks that might be used to incubate nasty microbes -- or possibly to make weather balloon gas. In short I want to see what we were told we would see, and in the quantities and readiness that we were told they would be before I say "yeah, looky here, you were right."

My reply:


From: beardedbruce - PM
Date: 18 Jun 04 - 06:39 PM

a stockpile of chemical warheads, for existing Iraqi artillary? The facilities to manufacture the chemicals to put in the warheads? Long range rockets, prohibited under UN sanctions?

But thank you for at least having the decency to define what you would accept as proof.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Lord Batman's Kitchener
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 04:36 PM

WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
So that's where my daughter's cookbook went!

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: kendall
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 07:30 AM

Saddam promised us the Mother of all battles if we invaded. Ok, if he had all those weapons of mass destruction, why didn't he use them?
Because, it was all a sham! He knew he had no such weapons, but he didn't want us to know. Seven years of inspections had
turned up NOTHING!

Show us the weapons...show us ONE of the weapons. Bush's lying mouth is one of ours.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Paul Burke
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 08:46 AM

They never found WLD in Iraq. He's far too sensible for that.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: fumblefingers
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 11:52 PM

One wonders why Saddam had all that "almost useless" uranium on hand if it was, in fact, almost useless. The Canadians wanted it for something.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Jul 08 - 02:22 AM

"Saddam promised us the Mother of all battles if we invaded. Ok, if he had all those weapons of mass destruction, why didn't he use them?
Because, it was all a sham! He knew he had no such weapons, but he didn't want us to know. Seven years of inspections had
turned up NOTHING!

Show us the weapons...show us ONE of the weapons. Bush's lying mouth is one of ours." - kendall

Which year are we talking about kendall 1991 or 2003? I would imagine, because of the last sentence of the first paragraph you are referring to 2003. Are you honestly trying to tell us than UNSCOM found nothing between 1991 and 1998 (seven years), if so their reports which are a matter of record contradict you rather markedly.

Now why would someone who had chemical and biological weapons be wary of using them against enemies amongst whose ranks were NATO and particularly US troops? Kendall could it have anything whatsoever to do with well known NATO doctrine that the automatic response to, and consequence of attack by chemical or biological weapons is the use of tactical nuclear weapons?

BB is correct in this thread WMD's were found but not in such quantities to satisfy the anti-US, anti-war, anti-Bush faction. United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 allowed Iraq no material breaches of it's terms and conditions, there were in fact seven such breaches between December 2002 and March 2003. George W. Bush was as good as his word, "If the United nations will not act, we will". He was perfectly correct in doing so.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Jul 08 - 02:24 AM

Willfully Made Deceptions

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: TIA
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 11:13 AM

Just in case you missed it, this story in the Guardian today:

"Defector admits to WMD lies that triggered Iraq war"


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/15/defector-admits-wmd-lies-iraq-war

Not holding my breath for any apologies or admissions of error though.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: TIA
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 11:16 AM

If you read, you will also note that his claims were thoroughly refuted even before Colin Powell's infamous speech.

But we already knew that too didn't we?

Thanks to Rummy's book.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: kendall
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 12:03 PM

Saddam was ordered to get rid of his WMDs. He did.They went to Syria, and that's why he didn't use them against us when we invaded Iraq. Forget the rhetoric, use your heads and look at the facts.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Stringsinger
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 12:30 PM

The book is well named. Disinformation about WMD's

If, by some mythology, these items were found there, that would not justify the
fear that Saddam could have developed any kind of destructive nukes.

I trust the credible commission that investigated them, UNSCOM and Scott Ritter.

There is a great deal of mis and disinformation being spread for political
reasons.

I will say this however. George W. Bush was not elected president to the U.S.
but appointed by the Supreme Court. Any information coming from his
cabinet or administration should be questioned.

Remember that there are many best-selling authors on the New York Times list such as Rumsfeld, et. al. It is easy to buy up enough books through political operatives to influence the list.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Songbob
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 01:27 PM

I read a comment elsewhere today that I think is pretty telling.

When we invaded Iraq, we went in headlong, expecting and getting very little resistance.

Why? If we truly thought Saddam had WMD, why were we not more cautious? Why the headlong rush to Baghdad?

Why?

Because the powers that ordered the invasion KNEW THERE WOULD BE NO WMD RESPONSE! If they'd expected them, they'd not have done it the way they did, and risk a huge casualty count that the public would fault them for.

They went in unafraid, because they KNEW there was little to fear.

And no, they didn't know this because they'd monitored Syria, either, since the weapons didn't go there. They didn't go anywhere because they didn't exist. We've found lots of conventional, aging artillery shells, etc., but nothing "scary" or unusual. They didn't exist.

And the war-planners, the war-mongers, selling us this shell game?

They knew.

They knew.

They knew, and they went.

And we know the rest.

Bob

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 01:34 PM

I lied about WMD

Above links to article about the Iraqi he defector who convinced the White House that Iraq had a secret biological weapons programme. He lied about this because he saw an opportunity to have Saddam overthrown. Or so he says now.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 01:36 PM

Whether or not a country possesses various weapons of mass destruction, it is no valid excuse for launching a war of your own free choice (open aggression, in other words) against that country. By doing so, you are proving that YOU are the dangerous one in the world, not them.

If possessing weapons of mass destruction were any justification for such aggression upon a country, then the entire world would be justified in attacking the USA, the world's number one possessor of WMDs, and they could use the same argument Bush did...."We gotta stop 'em now before they USE those weapons!" ;-)

The entire Middle Eastern region would likewise be justified in attacking Israel, because Israel is concealing a large number of nuclear weapons of mass destruction and everybody knows it. ;-)

So why don't they? Because Israel and the USA are so heavily armed that no one would DARE try and take away their WMDs, that's why.

You see how damned silly it all is? Certain countries in the world, namely those who are absolutely armed to the teeth and far more powerful than their neighbours use the excuse that one of those weaker neighbours is hiding weapons of mass destruction, and they attack their weaker neighbour, supposedly because of that threat!!! Man, talk about an excercise in hypocrisy....it's the bandit attacking the homeowner, claiming that the homeowner is a threat to the bandit!

The USA was never in any danger from Iraq, even if Iraq had had those WMD's, yet the Bush administration relied on hysterical propaganda about WMDs for one purpose only....to get the American public to support such a war. The general public is assumed to be ignorant enough to be manipulated by such nonsense....and it's a correct assumption.

NO country has the right to launch a war of aggression against another country merely because that country has....or is reputed to have...various weapons.

That's like you say to the police, "I'm going to shoot my neighbour, and here's why. He has a gun hidden in his house. I fear that he may use that gun to someday shoot me, so I'm going to go over, bust his door down, and shoot him first with my guns, of which I have about 5,000 here, including bazookas, machine guns, howitzers, etc. I am justified in this, because I can't live with the fear that he has a pistol hidden in his house, and he might one day use it against me."

That is the pathetic kind of laughable logic that the US administration used to attack Iraq, it has no basis in any kind of international law or even in any kind of sanity....and accordingly, all this bla-bla here about whether or not Iraq had any WMDs is utterly beside the point.

The sense of entitlement and utter grandiosity that is typically displayed by the USA and Israel in regards to their supposed divine right to do what no one else in the world is allowed to do is quite striking. They can apparently attack anyone they want, any time they want, merely upon suspicion that their victims might be planning to someday attack them! Wow. ;-) Hilarious. Imagine if all nations had carte blanche to act in such a godlike fashion. We'd have a lively little world, wouldn't we?

Their unique sense of entitlement and untouchable dominion, their sheer arrogance, is no less than that of the Spanish Inquisition, who could accuse anyone they wanted of witchcraft or satanism, sieze them, torture them until they admitted to it...then say, "See? We were right! They WERE witches!"

It's absolute bullshit to imagine that that war was really being fought over WMDs in Iraq, whether or not they ever existed. That war was fought over the usual grand imperial objectives (resources, land, regional and political control, etc)...not over some nonexistent fear of Iraq's wretchedly puny ability to defend itself with advanced weapons.

The pity of it is that much of the North American public is ignorant enough and silly enough to fall for such transparent nonsense. They like a simple, dramatic story, and that's what the administration gives them. The story is always made up to fit the occasion, and it seldom has much to do with reality.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: gnu
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 01:39 PM

Kendall... Syria... don't forget Lybia.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 02:00 PM

Look, aggressive military empires always do exactly what they want to do...IF they have the power to do it.

If Saddam, for instance, had had the power to attack all his neighbours and occupy the entire Middle East, I'm sure he'd have done it. He never had such power, though. He was unable to defeat Iran in the 80s. He was able to invade and occupy Kuwait, because Kuwait was much smaller and weaker than Iraq.

The USA is strong enough to attack and occupy Iraq, and had decided it would be advantageous to do so. Therefore, they did so. In order to do so, though...they had to first convince their own public and world opinion that they were doing so for a good reason...and not just committing blatant imperial aggression.

Hence, they blathered on about supposed Iraqi WMDs. And their public bought it. But it was just a transparent excuse for doing what they wanted to do regardless....and even if Iraq HAD those WMDs, it would have presented no real danger to America. None whatsoever. Therefore it had nothing to do with the decision America made to go to war.

It was a red herring...a propaganda gambit...whether or not those WMDs ever existed. To argue about whether they existed is to miss the more cogent point that they were NOT what that war was really about.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: gnu
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 02:36 PM

LH... "To argue about whether they existed is to miss the more cogent point that they were NOT what that war was really about."

True. But the fact that they did exist and were spirited out of Iraq before the invasion is a point in favour of those who say... "... that they were NOT what that war was really about."

No?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 05:40 PM

From Guest SongBob's post:

"When we invaded Iraq, we went in headlong, expecting and getting very little resistance.

Why? If we truly thought Saddam had WMD, why were we not more cautious? Why the headlong rush to Baghdad?

Why?

Because the powers that ordered the invasion KNEW THERE WOULD BE NO WMD RESPONSE! If they'd expected them, they'd not have done it the way they did, and risk a huge casualty count that the public would fault them for.

They went in unafraid, because they KNEW there was little to fear.

This is March 2003 you are talking about right?

What were the differences in approach to the invasion in 1991 and 2003? Damn few that I can see and we definitely knew that Saddam Hussein HAD WMD in 1991 didn't we. After Safwan UNSCOM inspectors went in there and found a whole rake of them between 1991 and 1998. They wrote many reports regularly detailing the progress they were making, the lack of co-operation they were experiencing, and the discrepencies in the Iraqi inventories and gaps in the records.

Now why if he had these chemical and biological weapons did he not use them. The answer to that is simple. The Russians would have told Saddam that if he used those weapons against NATO troops the response would come in the form of tactical nuclear stikes against Iraq.

Now if he had these chemical and biological weapons which armed forces in the world were best trained and equipped to survive such an attack? NATO, who had been in training to face exactly this threat in Europe for 40 years.

Whether Saddam had any WMD was not the point of the exercise. UNSCOM and its successor UNMOVIC did not go into Iraq TO FIND WMD. Their job was to confirm and verify that IRAQ no longer possessed these weapons, to confirm and verify that Iraq was no longer pursuing the development or acquisition of those weapons or the means to deliver them, because at Safwan in April 1991 Saddam Hussein's representatives on behalf or Iraq had agreed to disarm in a manner that could be verified and confirmed by the United Nations appointed Inspectors. The invasion of March 2003 was undertaken to force compliance of the Safwan Agreement on Iraq and verify beyond doubt that Iraq disarmed, and that was done.