BS: Got WMDs?

Subject: BS: Got WMDs?
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Jun 03 - 11:21 AM

Heard the following this morning on NPR on my way to work...

the audio link can be found by clicking here

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Jun 03 - 08:24 PM

Who cares, ya commie? We got Buswieser and NASCAR and that's all that really matters.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: GUEST,Q
Date: 06 Jun 03 - 08:23 PM

Weavers of mass delusion?

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 07 Jun 03 - 03:03 AM

I guessed this would happen when I noticed a colleague back at work 8 months before he was due....

He's in the Territorial Army - part time soldiers - and is a weapons expert, chemical, biological and nuclear. When he was called up in February he was told he'd be away for a year. He got back last month.

Says it all really.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Jun 03 - 02:41 PM

I see in The Observer today an interesting development regarding those "Iraqi mobile biological warfare production units" that Bush has been going on about so triumphantly, anytime reporters ask "Where are the WMDs ?"

It now appears they aren't anything of the sort, but that that "the units were designed to be used for hydrogen production to fill artillery balloons, part of a system originally sold to Saddam by Britain in 1987."

(And maybe it's as well to point out that The Observer actually supported the war. Mind you, at the time the paper believed the stuff about how Iraq was bristling with Weapons of Mass Destruction that could be unleashed within a few minutes.)

Somehow I can't see Bush apologising for misleading people over this. Well, he wouldn't would be?

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 08 Jun 03 - 05:21 PM

Sigh!

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Jun 03 - 09:31 PM

Now the story is changing from WMD to "Well, danged, we liberated them folks from an evil man!" Well, the substitute may very well be equally evil, but that doesn't matter one danged bit.

Talk about revsionism, we are seeing it daily with the lie de jours' that these folks come up with.

Problem is, is that very few people care. "Lie to me, that's fine, what time is the NASCAR race on TV on Sunday?" Man, the US population has been dumbed down to the IQ of the average sanil. They just don't give a sh*t. (Excuse my French) But they really don't. Tell 'em what they're sposed to think and they think it, do it or not do it. Bunch of wimps as far as I can see. Not a patriot left in the crowd!

We all know thesefolksa re lieing to us and stealing other folks stuff, including our own, and yet we blissfully watch stupid friggin' cars go round and round and round and round and round and...... the beat goes on...

Beam me up...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: TIA
Date: 08 Jun 03 - 10:51 PM

If the whole thing was really about a humanitarian moral imperative, when are the neocons going to push and invasion of the Congo?

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Jun 03 - 11:25 PM

Good point, TIA. Like never. The neocons are only in this thing fir themselves and their friends. No one else. You got a bomb and no oil, forget it. You got no bomb and oil, then lets see what we can pin on you....

How utterly simplistic mankind has become. Especially the mankind, or whatever they call themselves, is in the current US administration.

Geeeze... I thought we were a little furhter down the road... Guess not...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: Peg
Date: 09 Jun 03 - 01:21 PM

Condoleezza Rice was on two morning news shows yesterday. George Stephanopoulos laid into her about the fact that the "evidence" for WMDs cited again and again in speeches and most notably the State of the Union Address, was in fact based on inaccurate documents and that this was acknowledged by the Administration, but that this information kept being trotted out as "proof."

I actually found it amusing that George was able to wipe that smug self-satisfied robot smile off her face as she backpedalled; I actually thought I saw her eyes watering....she spun it all nicely of course, referring to things like "we asked the intelligence community what we could say, what we could not say" and "just because this source turned out to be inaccurate, we were also using other sources to inform our decisions" blah blah blah, but since George never once asked "why did the President and the Administration LIE about this?" she did not have to directly answer him...

I am horrified at the lack of accountability and the pandering of our news media. There is a GREAT essay on this by a columnist named Wolcott in the current issue of Vanity Fair.

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Jun 03 - 05:19 AM

Please feel free to correct the following where incorrect in detail.

1. The WMD that this was all about were those detailed in the UNSCOM Report to the United Nations Security Council in January 1999. UNSCOM had documented evidence that the materials, stocks of weaponised agents, munitions and missiles to deliver those agents, existed. The report also said that UNSCOM could not state with any degree of certainty that Iraq's WMD programme had been shut down.

2. UN Security Council Resolution 1441, sent UNMOVIC and IAEA inspection teams back into Iraq to determine the status relating to the items specified in the UNSCOM Report and to obtain verifiable evidence relating to the status of Iraq's WMD programmes and capability.

3. Resolution 1441 required full pro-active co-operation from Iraq. This was not evident and was a consistent criticism of the Iraqi regime in every report tabled by Dr. Hans Blix to the UNSC.

4. The Iraqi Authorities consistently claimed that all their WMD stocks had been destroyed, but could offer UNMOVIC no means by which this could be verified. During the inspection period, small numbers of items, that the Iraqi's had claimed that they had destroyed were discovered - this threw doubt on the statements by the Iraqi's regarding the remainder of the outstanding items.

None of the above relates to anything that could be seen as being driven by either the US or UK - all the above lies within the province of UN controlled and directed activity - all the above remains relevant to-date, it still must be established exactly what happened to the items mentioned in the UNSCOM Report of January 1999.

Most of what is being discussed now relating to WMD is centred around evaluation of intelligence (where it is always more prudent to weight the evaluation towards worst-case) - any such evaluation regarding WMD must take into account not only the weapons themselves but also the research and development programmes behind such weapons.

Liz the Squeak:

"I noticed a colleague back at work 8 months before he was due....

He's in the Territorial Army - part time soldiers - and is a weapons expert, chemical, biological and nuclear. When he was called up in February he was told he'd be away for a year. He got back last month.

Says it all really."

Doesn't say anything at all LtS - Your colleague would have been required for as long military operations were ongoing in Iraq in an immediate support role. For longer term support relating to chemical, biological and nuclear incidents, the coalition could rely on support from former Warsaw Pact members whose experience in dealing with Soviet ordinance would be a great deal more "current" and efficient.

TIA - I recently asked the question what members thought would happen in the DR Congo - you can see how well the UN handles the issue - probably as effectively as they coped in Rwanda - far too little, far too late.

Bobert - The Congo is potentially one of the richest countries in the world, gold, diamonds, oil.... Control of which has been what has lain behind the ongoing factional fighting (supported spasmodically by the armies from neighbouring countries). The NeoCons that you and TIA mention are not interested in gold, diamonds, oil????

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jun 03 - 01:42 PM

Faith like yours is of the religious dimension, Teribus...unshakeable. Hans Ulrich Rudel was like that too (Germany's highest-scoring Stuka ace...he destroyed about 500 Russian tanks and a battleship, and never lost faith in his party, his country or his leaders). That's faith. It doesn't change the fact that the Nazis were a destructive administration, supported by ordinary people who didn't know any better. So is the present US administration.

A country that has significant weapons of mass destruction does not go down before a foreign invasion without using them. If Iraq had had such weapons they would have used them.

The most significant real weapon of mass destruction we have seen in recent times has been the avalance of false propaganda, spin doctoring, and outright lies with which the Bush administration manipulated the American public and launched its illegal and unprovoked war of aggression on Iraq, its former client state, which state would not have come into existence (under Saddam, I mean) without the previous assistance of the USA, a country which is governed by people who care about only one thing...WINNING the game of World domination. And that game has absolutely nothing to do with either democracy or freedom. It has to do with everything opposed to both of those principles.

Saddam was playing a similar game...on a much more localized scale. He was a mere convenient excuse for America. A marketable "face" for people to hate. They don't need him anymore, now that they have Iraq. They will soon find some other "bad guy" for naive people to obsess about, so that another war of aggression can be launched without provocation or need, against another opponent who has less chance than a fish in a barrel.

(By the way, I think it was the Saudis who actually planned and backed 911. But you won't hear much about that. Iraq certainly did not do it.)

Imperial Rome, Teribus. You're just a loyal Roman, repeating what you've believed all your life, so you can't see it any differently. And I'm fairly sure you never will. If you really believe in these preemptive wars, why not pick up your sword or gun, enlist, and face it in the front line with the rest of the Empire's troops? Too old? Well, that's a shame...a man who believes in supporting naked aggression oughta get a chance to join the action, I think, and gain some martial glory as the Imperial juggernaut rolls on over another little country.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: Amergin
Date: 10 Jun 03 - 02:09 PM

Well, I'm sure that before too long...they will plant evidence....

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jun 03 - 02:33 PM

Possibly...or they may just prefer to rely on the short attention span of the general public, which can easily be diverted anyway by manufacturing some new crisis.

SARS, by the way, seems to be falling a bit short of causing a dimension of hysteria comparable to the hype being generated by the media. 31 people have died of it in the Toronto area. That's out of a population of about 3 million. That means I have a one in 96,774 chance of dying of SARS at this point. Oh! I am soooo terrified. I have been down to Toronto several times in the last 2 weeks, and I can tell you that the ordinary daily traffic conditions pose a far greater peril to life and limb than SARS...but you don't see people demanding that we close the roads, do you?

As Amos has said before, we live in a semi-barbaric and really quite primitive society, driven by its own irrational and mythical notions of reality every bit as much as was Rome, Assyria, or ancient Babylon.

Loyalists and career soldiers don't want to hear that. It might make them question what they are doing, and cause them to lose a little sleep.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Jun 03 - 09:43 PM

Well, now the operative word is "program" since the Bush/Blair regime has been caught with their manipulative pants down.

"Well, thet had a *program*!"

Big wooooop!

Who doesn't?

"But is was a big scarey program!"

Yeah, right. We're seeing the evidence comin' in like a tidal wave...

Hmmmmmmm, Part 1614?

This was about oil. It was about domination. And, as importantly, it was about an administration that prior to 9-11 was on the rocks and going down. And with lots of unpaid debts... (Which are now being paid...)

Well, this certainly shopuld create some difficulty for future historians in how they will *revise* this terribly evil little stretch that America is going through to make it sound acceptable. It isn't, and I know in my heart that those of you who continue to stand up for the Bush/Blair regime... know it...

Yeah, you will throw up the usual "yeah, but....s' but you know your guy is nothing more than a thug.

Sorry, but it's true.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: TIA
Date: 10 Jun 03 - 10:12 PM

Yeah, I forgot, we HAD to invade Iraq to back up the UN - even though the UN was adamantly against an invasion. Undoubtedly, it was for their own good. As for the Iraqi's, turns out it was for their own good as well. And Brits and Americans who were led in to war by lies - don't worry, it was for your own good. You folks can't handle democracy - we'll lead you for your own good (with not a whiff of self-interest). Why are Bechtel and Halliburton rebuilding Iraq? Can't be for their profits - must be for the good of the Iraqis. These folks are just soooo damn giving, I'm getting all choked up.

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: Gareth
Date: 11 Jun 03 - 12:49 AM

Welll WMD's or not, Saddam has gone - Any arguments against that ???

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jun 03 - 02:21 AM

Actually, yes...I have heard arguments against it from various Iraqui civilians who have stated openly to the press that it was better under Saddam. I'm not necessarily saying that myself, I'm just reporting on incidents I have read about in that regard lately. Some people would, it seems, prefer not to have their country invaded by foreigners with WMD's (like B-52 strikes), their infrastructure devastated, their art treasures plundered, and their society thrown into chaos in the process.

Gosh. What is wrong with those people? Gotta wonder, eh?

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Jun 03 - 04:50 AM

Little Hawk,

What I stated in my post above requires no great unshakeable faith whatsoever - it is merely an outline of the situation with regard to Iraq's WMD and WMD programmes. The outline is provided by information gathered for, and reported to, the Security Council of the United Nations by teams of inspectors drawn from member states. I note that in detail you do not question, or refute any of the four points raised.

You state that:
"A country that has significant weapons of mass destruction does not go down before a foreign invasion without using them. If Iraq had had such weapons they would have used them."

That is not bourne out historically - in 1991 Iraq, undeniably, did have a credible chemical and biological capability - They didn't use them then.

Your references to 9/11, Rudel and Imperial Rome are totally irrelevant to the subject under discussion. With regard to my own personal experience, during my time in the forces I have been on active service on three occasions, so please, you have no need to feel sorry for any lack of opportunity you feel I may, or may not, have missed out on.

Amergin:

You say that you are, "sure that before too long...they will plant evidence.... "

Why would they do that? - they simply just do not have to do that. What they do have to do is establish beyond doubt what happened to the items mentioned in the UNSCOM Report. For the second part of UNMOVIC and IAEA's remit, with the Ba'athist regime of Saddam Hussein gone, they can say with an extremely high degree of confidence that currently, Iraq is not pursuing any programme related to any WMD capability.

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Jun 03 - 12:44 PM

Here's the part I'm having trouble understanding. If Saddam had in mind to use WMDs agains the US at some time in the future, and he had them during both of the Gulf wars witht the US, why didnt' he use them in those wars?

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jun 03 - 01:55 PM

He didn't use them in '91, because the coalition stopped short of a full invasion, and he didn't have to. He didn't use them in 2003 because he didn't have them. The idea that Saddam could possible pose a serious threat to the USA is so ludicrous that it surpasses the nonsense Hitler used to justify his attack on Poland!

Teribus - Fair enough. I wasn't suggesting that the particular info you offered regarding the WMD's was based on faith. I was suggesting that your general emotional committment (which leads you to seek out certain information and not perhaps seek out other information) is based on a form of faith. That's not just the case with you...it's also the case with me and everyone else...we are all subjective creatures with certain biases. We defend our subjective biases by looking up various forms of objective info and concocting logical arguments which are like a mask that conceals the subjective nature that lies behind it.

I'm just saying that you are analogous to a loyal Roman who defends and justifies the conquests of the Empire, while I am analogous to a free Briton or Gaul who detests the Empire.

As such, you will see good where I see evil, and we will probably seldom agree on the rights and wrongs in a particular conflict.

I know I'm subjective, and I observe it in process as it occurs. Do you know that you also are? I'm not asking that with any disrespect, I'm just wondering if you know it.

Or are you under the impression that you are completely objective?

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Jun 03 - 03:11 AM

CarolC,

To answer your question regarding the use, by Saddam Hussein, of WMD - he didn't use them on either occasion because he couldn't deploy them. My reason for saying that is based on his previous use of those weapons and the preferred method of delivery.

Little Hawk's contention regarding the reason for lack of use during the 1991 conflict is only partly true, as it forms one part of a chicken-and-egg discussion. It would be equally correct to contend that had Saddam Hussein used his WMD capability in 1991 it would have escalated the conflict and prompted a full invasion of Iraq by coalition forces. WMD, and their use, would not have saved Iraq or the ruling Ba'athist regime, from total defeat in 1991 and Saddam Hussein and the Revolutionary Council knew that.

Little Hawk,

I would dearly like to know your grounds and reasoning for making the statement that - "The idea that Saddam could possible pose a serious threat to the USA is so ludicrous that it surpasses the nonsense Hitler used to justify his attack on Poland!"

I ask that question assuming that you meant to say, "The idea that Saddam could possibly pose a serious threat to the USA...". I don't find it ludicrous at all, and could think of many ways in which Saddam could have posed a serious threat to the USA, its allies and the middle-eastern region. You on the other hand rule it totally outwith the bounds of possibility.

My "general emotional committment" as you put it, is more geared to challenging statements and arguements that I believe are flawed, or based on information that I know for fact to be incorrect - not to any great loyalty to "Empire". When taught to study History, I was taught to take any particular incident and look at it from all sides, in terms of background, the aims and objectives of the policies adopted, the reasons for those aims and objectives, rational behind the conduct of policy and ultimately the effects of pursuing that policy. A classic example of not following this advice is obvious when reading threads on this forum relating to the history of the British Isles, i.e. England/Scotland, England/Ireland. In studying the history of the British Isles it is essential that that includes the history of both Spain and France with regard to aims and foreign policy - it is glaringly obvious that many haven't.

As to - "I'm just saying that you are analogous to a loyal Roman who defends and justifies the conquests of the Empire, while I am analogous to a free Briton or Gaul who detests the Empire." - all that sentence indicates to me is that you tend to see things in black and white. I tend to see more shades of grey and I believe a review of our posts would bear that out.

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Jun 03 - 09:47 PM

Yo T,

I notice that you have dropped your pre-invasion use of WMD and now when you use WMD there's the word "program" in close proximity. Ahhhh, did you come up with that yourself or are you perhaps parroting the Bush spin-masters? Ahhhh, nevermind. I know the answer to that one.

Ahhhh, but is your side's final "This is our story and we're stickin' to it!"???? Nevermind. I think I know the answer to that one as well...

Okay, I do have one question. Are you on Bush's payroll? You seerm so utterly partisan that this thought has come into my mind. Hey, if you are, then my hard earned tax bucks could be going to you to defend Bush? Now what a strange situation, indeed.

Well, if you are a paid employee of the Bush adminisration, please lie to me and tell me you're not. Man, that would keep me up at night pacin' the floors...

But, Teese, I like you even if you are a tad on the misdirected side...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jun 03 - 11:22 PM

The simple fact is that through incompetence or intent, the Resident put American soldiers in harm's way based on a false reality -- a reality that was intentionally falsified.

The result of this mismanagement -- whether intentional or merely inept -- was several thousand Iraqi deaths, at least, including noncombatants in significant numbers, and a significant number of American and British deaths either by fire, accident or fratricide.

He is either too slimy or too incompetent to retain his post and should be impeached.

A

It wasn't murder in the second degree
It wasn't murder in the third;
Ole Bush just went and dropped those folks
Like a hunter drops a bird!
He had PR,
But he was using it wrong....

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: TIA
Date: 13 Jun 03 - 12:49 PM

Okay, might as well rant in this thread...

My newspaper yesterday had these six stories, all on the first three pages:

1) US soldiers by the thousands were engaged in fierce and deadly fighting in Iraq,

2) A detailed study of hospital records by journalists finds that at a very bare minimum, the war in Iraq has thus far created over 3000 civilian deaths,

3) The US has run out of places to look for WMD's in Iraq,

4) The US military is saying that it may take more than two years, and thousands more troops, before an Iraqi government can be installed,

5) US intelligence is convinced that Al Quaeda will strike against American interests in the near future,

6) More bloodshed between the Israelis and Plestinians.


In the days following the toppling of the statue, I heard many commentators on thug radio and Fox news, and read dozens of editorials and letters-to-the-editor, calling on "the peaceniks" to admit they were wrong and apologize.

In light of yesterday's paper, WRONG ABOUT WHAT?

Yes, we "won" the war. But not one peacenik that I know objected to the war because they were afraid we'd lose.

Yes, Saddam was a cruel tyrant. But, the peaceniks I know have also been active in human rights issues for most of their lives -- the warhawks are johnny-come-latelies to issues of concern for the world's poor and oppressed (but welcome aboard, are ya' gonna stick around?)

Instead, many peaceniks were concerned that the war would become an unwinnable quagmire (see headline 1), that there would be many casualties among the civilians we were claiming to liberate (headline 2), that Iraq did not pose enough of a threat to the US to justify a first-strike (headline 3), that we could not hope to foist a government (even democracy) upon a sovereign nation (headline 4), and that a strike against an arab country would not prevent terrorism, but could actually incite more (headlines 5 and 6).

So warhawks, what exactly were the peaceniks wrong about? Turns out we seem to have had a hell of a lot just about right.

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Jun 03 - 01:44 PM

The primary reason the Bush administration gave for the preemptive invasion of Iraq was the contention that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and that he constituted a clear and imminent threat to the United States and to the rest of the world. This is what we, the American public and the rest of the world, were told by the Bush administration, based, they said, on intelligence reports they had received. A secondary reason (insufficient to justify a preemptive attack, but presented as a sort of "moral imperative") was to bring democracy to the oppressed Iraqi people.

There are three possibilities:—

It is inarguable that Saddam Hussein had chemical/biological weapons. We know this for two reasons: a) he used poison gas during the Iran-Iraq war and he used it again on the Kurds; and b) we have the receipts, because he got these CB weapons from US back when he was our Son of a Bitch.

1. Saddam Hussein either hid them so well that we can't find them; or he sold them or passed them on to someone else (unsettling thought); or they passed their sell-by date and he disposed of them (quite likely, because the shelf-life of chemical/biological weapons is limited). Finding missiles with empty warheads that were designed for CB weapons would seem to indicate this. It is obvious that he did not have a nuclear program that could have constituted a threat to the United States or anyone else for years to come.

2. American intelligence reports were flawed. There are two possibilities here: intelligence agencies were either mistaken, or they lied to the Bush administration. This does not bode well for any future actions such as preemptive attacks on other nations based on intelligence reports, because it would appear that the intelligence agencies are, for whichever reason, simply not reliable.

3. The Bush administration lied to the American people and to the rest of the world. Why? Control of the Middle East is considered essential to maintaining America's status as sole Superpower in the world. Geopolitical domination of the world is greatly enhanced for whichever country controls the world's major oil reserves—whoever has its hand on the tap. The war on Iraq has been on the Right Wing agenda since the (to them) inconclusive and disappointing end of the Gulf War.

Once again, it's all right HERE. And HERE.

Is this the kind of government we really want?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Jun 03 - 05:29 PM

TIA,

Hmmmmm, three days later and no response from any of the war-nics. Reckon that speaks louder than the reems and reems of crap they wrote a few months ago.

There is absolutely no pro-human justification for the Bush foriegn policy. It is steeped in evilness and greed. Hmmmmm? Just like his dopmestic policy.

Dangerous situation....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 16 Jun 03 - 05:54 PM

Bobert-

Be fair! Mudcat has been off-line for much of the weekend. I'm sure they'll contribute something contrite soon.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Jun 03 - 06:26 PM

Having them in 1992 did the trick didn't it? Stopped the invasion.

If they'd really believed Iraq had them this time and was able to use them, does anybody seriously think there would have been an invasion this time?

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: Bev and Jerry
Date: 16 Jun 03 - 07:06 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: Bev and Jerry
Date: 16 Jun 03 - 07:12 PM

Sorry, our mouse jumped on the wrong button. Bad mouse!

A few days ago the BBC news ran an old tape of Colin Powell telling the UN that we were certain Iraq had WMDs. He showed a picture of a specific site with circles and arrows on it and said this is where some WMDs are.

This was immediately followed by a current tape of one of their reporters on the ground at that very site. The site had, of course, been bombed but when the reporter asked workers at the site if anyone had searched for WMDs there, they replied that no one has even been to the site since it was bombed.

If we were so sure WMDs were there, how come we're not looking there?

Bev and Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: Gareth
Date: 16 Jun 03 - 07:13 PM

Well there's plenty of evidence of mass destruction, and yes this action "WAS IN MY NAME"

Mark you it's funny this -

1/. Saddam appologists saying "We sold him the Weapons" ie "We have the reciepts"

2/. Saddam appologists saying " The UN inspectors need more time"

3/. Saddam appologists saying. "These weapons are neccessary to defend Iraq from Imperialist aggression"

and now Saddam appologists saying " There were no WMD's therefore this invasion should not have happened "

And also now Saddam appologists saying "Oh dear, that they haven't found (Mmm ! and what where those missiles ?????) any WMDs instantly shows the whole thing was a fraud"

I suspect than when the dust settles a WMD program will be documented,
Saddam appologists saying "It was planted"

In the meantime more and more mass graves are discouvered.

Tell me - do you Saddam appologists want his reign of terror back ??

If so be honest and post saying just that.

Or is this just another excuse to critice the Shrub and Tony Blair.

Oh and BTW - Will you now admit that sanctions did not kill Iraqui children, the corruption of Saddams regime did ?

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Jun 03 - 09:41 PM

So, Gareth, you got a bone to pick with Saddam? Kill him, fir God's sake but don't kill a bunch of women, children and old folks, take over an entire country and pretend that you have some righteous highground for having done so.

If Dan Rather could have gotten into do an interview with Saddam, then if you think that the US couldn't have killed him then name the bridge you'd like to bu7y and I'll have the papers drawn up.

You see the world full of Saddam apologists. Well, what the heck are you folks who come to Bush's defense irregardless of the lie or offense to mankind de' jour?

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Jun 03 - 03:50 AM

Bobert - a reply to one of your earlier posts that I was unable to submit - you are clutching at straws and using your highly selective memory to do so:

"I notice that you have dropped your pre-invasion use of WMD and now when you use WMD there's the word "program" in close proximity. Ahhhh, did you come up with that yourself or are you perhaps parroting the Bush spin-masters? Ahhhh, nevermind. I know the answer to that one."

I know the answer to that one as well Bobert - the mention of WMD and WMD Programmes, with respect to Iraq have been around for about 12-13 years. The "programme" aspect that you, mistakenly, attribute to either myself, or the current US Administration has been detailed in United Nations Security Council Resolutions since the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq in 1990 and in instructions to IAEA, UNSCOM and UNMOVIC inspection teams - please feel free to check it out, then come back on this thread and tell me if that is correct - whether you will or not - ah well I think I know the answer to that one.

Amos, I could not disagree more:

1.
"The simple fact is that through incompetence or intent, the Resident put American soldiers in harm's way based on a false reality -- a reality that was intentionally falsified."

The reality was the contents of UNSCOM's Report of 1999, combined with a period of nearly four years during which no monitoring or inspections could be carried out. Evaluations of intelligence, at least as far as the UK government goes, provide best and worst case scenarios - unless there is an overwhelmingly good reason to do otherwise, it is always prudent to weight the evaluation towards the worst case - by following this path you are less likely to be caught out by nasty surprises.

Did Saddam Hussein have any WMD and were programmes in operation to develope such weapons? Time will tell, the items mentioned in the UNSCOM Report still have to be found, or evidence of there destruction has to be found. The war could have been avoided, had Saddam chosen to co-operate fully with UNMOVIC and IAEA from the outset. Why did he not do that? I can think of two possible explanations:

Pride:
Because it made the defeat of 1991 seem less complete. This was further bolstered by the fact that within 12 months of that war ending, the heads of government of the two most significant coalition allies (USA - George Bush Snr, and UK - John Major) had been removed from office, while Saddam remained in power.
The lack of co-operation and deception schemes used to thwart the efforts of UNSCOM inspection teams enabled Saddam and the Ba'athist regime to demonstrate to the other Arab nations in the region that Iraq could successfully defy the will of the international community. By his actions he demonstrated that he could continue to do so with increasing impunity.
As long as the regime in Iraq could convince the world, and its neighbours in the region particularly, that they still had a credible WMD capability Iraq would be considered as a power to be reckoned with.

The effects of co-operation and verifiable evidence of disarmament as required by the United Nations Security Council leads to the second of the possible reasons;

Security:
Dissidents within Iraq had to be made to believe that the regime in power still possessed this capability.
Iran had to be convinced that Iraq still possessed WMD and an ongoing WMD programme.

"The result of this mismanagement -- whether intentional or merely inept -- was several thousand Iraqi deaths, at least, including noncombatants in significant numbers, and a significant number of American and British deaths either by fire, accident or fratricide."

If any charge of mismanagement, or ineptitude, is to be levelled it should levelled fairly and squarely at the UN. My reasons for saying this are:
1. They dragged their collective heels with respect to outstanding resolutions pertaining to Iraq for years, adopting lethargic inaction as their preferred course.
2. After 911, a terrorist attack that Iraq had nothing to do with, but which Saddam Hussein publicly applauded, the US was forced to evaluate possible/probable locations and regimes from which a future attack on the United States could be launched or supported.
3. The US prompted the UN out of inaction and outlined what was required to put the verifiable disarmament of Iraq beyond doubt. This was vigorously resisted by France and Russia (Iraq's main trading partners) and by Germany.
4. The new resolution that both the US and UK insisted upon was weakened and delayed as much as possible by France, Russia and Germany but eventually arrived by unanimous vote as UNSC Resolution 1441. The US in the original draft wanted a specific threat of the use of military force should Iraq fail to comply with the requirements of the new resolution. Had that been allowed to stand - there would have been no war, because the message that would have sent to Saddam Hussein would have been clear and unmistakable – we, the international community, now mean business, comply or be removed from power. As it was, in its watered down version, Saddam saw room for manoeuvre and scope to continue his policy of prevarication and deception.

"He is either too slimy or too incompetent to retain his post and should be impeached."

On the contrary - he provided leadership when required, no matter how distasteful the task. As the man charged with the safeguarding the security of the United States of America and its citizens, he acted in a responsible manner - under no circumstances could he possibly have given Iraq's leader, or regime, the benefit of the doubt, that was simply not an option.

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Jun 03 - 04:37 AM

TIA - regarding your six "Headlines"

1) US soldiers by the thousands were engaged in fierce and deadly fighting in Iraq,

Inaccurate impression given, possibly due to the slant that particular editor wanted to put on the situation. The fighting, which was of fairly short duration, was confined to about three locations (in a country the size of France) known to be loyal to Saddam and the Ba'athists. The reason for this loyalty is due, by and large, to the fact that under Saddam these people were favoured at the expense of the people in other regions. The US military have made some glaringly obvious errors in their attempts to implement a "Hearts and Minds" policy, not surprising - they have never been very good at it, they do not study the concept and have never been used in the secondary role of "Aid to the civil power".

2) A detailed study of hospital records by journalists finds that at a very bare minimum, the war in Iraq has thus far created over 3000 civilian deaths,

In which case the Iraqi people have come out ahead, albeit in a comparison of bad versus worse. If over a similar period Saddam had batted his average the number would have been in excess of 15,000.

3) The US has run out of places to look for WMD's in Iraq,

I don't for one minute accept that and would love to know the grounds for making that statement.

4) The US military is saying that it may take more than two years, and thousands more troops, before an Iraqi government can be installed,

Sounds pretty reasonable to me, did anybody think for one moment that this could be accomplished in a shorter time-frame? De-Nazification of Germany took over five years to carry through.

5) US intelligence is convinced that Al Quaeda will strike against American interests in the near future,

That I believe would have been the case irrespective of any action in Iraq.

6) More bloodshed between the Israelis and Plestinians.

Has more to do with Palestinian hard-line opposition to the possible effects of US engagement in the peace process with the possibility of progress based on concessions being made - has nothing to do with Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Jun 03 - 06:13 AM

Don, thanks for your post, which I read with interest, and would like to respond to.

"The primary reason the Bush administration gave for the pre-emptive invasion of Iraq was the contention that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and that he constituted a clear and imminent threat to the United States and to the rest of the world. This is what we, the American public and the rest of the world, were told by the Bush administration, based, they said, on intelligence reports they had received."

What you omit to mention in the above, is that having been given every possible opportunity to assist with the efforts of the UNMOVIC inspections teams, the Iraqi Authorities failed to comply with UNSC Resolution 1441.

"A secondary reason (insufficient to justify a preemptive attack, but presented as a sort of "moral imperative") was to bring democracy to the oppressed Iraqi people."

Due to the lack of co-operation on the part of the Iraqi Authorities, Regime Change became the only way by which whole-hearted Iraqi co-operation could be guaranteed.

There are three possibilities:—

It is inarguable that Saddam Hussein had chemical/biological weapons. We know this for two reasons: a) he used poison gas during the Iran-Iraq war and he used it again on the Kurds; and b) we have the receipts, because he got these CB weapons from US back when he was our Son of a Bitch.

You omit to mention the stocks of materials, agents, munitions and delivery systems detailed by UNSCOM in January 1999. Your contention in b) above is not wholely correct if you are referring to support given to Iraq during the Iraq-Iran War. The US did not supply Iraq with CB weapons - we have been over this before and you have yet to come up with any compelling evidence that they did. What America did supply was the means by which the Iraqi's could improve their defences against CB weapons - it should be remembered that Iran had those weapons too.

From your point 1.
"Saddam Hussein either hid them so well that we can't find them;"

Highly likely - the French, the Russians and the Germans, bought him enough time to accomplish just that

"or he sold them or passed them on to someone else (unsettling thought);"

If that is true then one of the main reasons given for the threat posed by this particular Regime has proved true.

"or they passed their sell-by date and he disposed of them (quite likely, because the shelf-life of chemical/biological weapons is limited)."

This could possibly be one of the favourites if I was a betting man - if this is the case then documentary evidence of their destruction and eye-witness accounts of those involved in the destruction will come out - unless those who carried this work out number among the occupants of the most recent mass graves discovered in Iraq. The reasoning given in parenthisis, is not strictly correct, during the period when UNSCOM were operating in Iraq, they tested weaponised agents that should have gone past their natural decay dates and found them to be still in good condition.

"Finding missiles with empty warheads that were designed for CB weapons would seem to indicate this."

Saddams mistrust of his military was such that they were purposely denied stocks of ammunition. The CB munitions would be stored as found and only filled immediately prior to use. The significance of finding the CB warheads was that it indicated the stuff reqired to fill them still existed. Large stocks of these munitions (rocket and artillery shells and bombs) were detailed by UNSCOM in 1999.

"It is obvious that he did not have a nuclear program that could have constituted a threat to the United States or anyone else for years to come."

Again not strictly correct according to Dr. Mohamed Al-Baradei. In his last reports to the UN Security Council, Dr Al-Baradei stated that he was move or less convinced that Iraq did not have a nuclear capability, the only outstanding point he had to verify was that Iraq did not have an on-going nuclear programme targeted at the acquisition of nuclear weapons.

From your point 2.
"American intelligence reports were flawed. There are two possibilities here: intelligence agencies were either mistaken, or they lied to the Bush administration."

You fail to mention the possibility that they could have been deliberately mislead. It is very difficult to actually argue this point from either side without knowing details of sources and means available for corroboration. It is also important to differentiate between intelligence data and intelligence evaluation of data.

"This does not bode well for any future actions such as pre-emptive attacks on other nations based on intelligence reports, because it would appear that the intelligence agencies are, for whichever reason, simply not reliable."

The policy of pre-emption was introduced by the nuclear age - nothing else. Intelligence is the only means by which nations can defend themselves. The more intelligence agencies co-operate with one another the less likely-hood there is of that intelligence being wrong, due to the number of sources and avenues for cross-checking. This co-operation between intelligence agencies has improved dramatically since 911.

From your point 3.
"The Bush administration lied to the American people and to the rest of the world."

Really? What lies?
That Iraq had WMD - they did according to UNSCOM, and no proof has been offered to date to contradict that report.
That Iraq was pursuing WMD programmes - 380-odd rocket motors smuggled into Iraq, an active rocket development programme that was proscribed by the UN, equipment dismantled by UNSCOM in the period 1991 - 1998 found repaired and re-assembled in another location by UNMOVIC in 2002-2003.

"Why? Control of the Middle East is considered essential to maintaining America's status as sole Superpower in the world."

Really? the region provides the USA with less than 16% of its oil requirements, that 16 % could easily be taken from elsewhere. It is in the interests of the USA that no one country dominates the region, and that the region is stable. There is a whale of a difference.

"Geopolitical domination of the world is greatly enhanced for whichever country controls the world's major oil reserves—whoever has its hand on the tap."

Under such criteria geopolitical domination of the world is therefore firmly in the hands of Russia - the country with the largest oil and natural gas reserves and the worlds largest oil exporter. They always have been and still are.

"The war on Iraq has been on the Right Wing agenda since the (to them) inconclusive and disappointing end of the Gulf War."

A point you could argue only with 20 x 20 hindsight. Your links to "The New American Century", no doubt will be waved like a flag for months to come, but when you get down to the bare bones of it, they represent the conclusions of a think-tank, that is all. When those conclusions were drawn none of those taking part held any political office, or had any real responsibilities in the real world. I dare say that exhaustive research could uncover think-tank reports from a mass of different organisations in a mass of different countries, that would make you hair stand on end. They are not policy documents, they are merely the reults of a talking-shop.

MGOH, says above -
"Having them in 1992 did the trick didn't it? Stopped the invasion."

No Kevin, Iraq's WMD did not stop the invasion - UNSC Resolutions stopped any full scale invasion and defeat of Iraq as they restricted the coalition to ejecting Iraqi occupying forces from Kuwait.

"If they'd really believed Iraq had them this time and was able to use them, does anybody seriously think there would have been an invasion this time?"

Coalition forces in 1991 knew that the Iraqi armed forces had CB weapons and credible delivery systems - it didn't stop them then Kevin - what was different this time? I vaguely touched on possible reasons for lack of use in 1991 and in 2003. CB weapons are fairly unreliable and have only been used historically in special circumstances against static or massed targets, they are of little use against highly mobile forces. Saddam's preferred means of delivery was from the air - Now Kevin exactly what did have Saddam not have in 1991 and in 2003 - an Air Force. The optimum time for an attack against the coalition forces in both 1991 and 2003 would have been during the build up with the assembly areas as target. On both occasions coalition air-power prevented him from doing that (remember the five week long intensive air campaign in 1990-1991, while the maintenance of the Southern No-Fly Zone prohibited deployment in the run up to 2003).

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Jun 03 - 08:40 AM

Exhibit "A"

I would like to enter the last three posts as evidence that the T-Bird is on the Bush payroll. I mean, since last night he (or she) haswritten not one, not two, but three "War and Peace" lenght rebuttral/position papers. Now, according to my Wes Ginny slide rule, that equals about 8 hours of work and no one in their right (no pun intended) mind would spend that amount of time arguing minute details unless they were getting paid for it. No one.

BTW, T, is the position/ excuse de jour the "stability" of the region?

Well, yer team is really doing a "bang up" job...

Gotta go to work now, to earn money and pay taxes so that yer paycheck won't bounce this Friday....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Jun 03 - 09:02 AM

Gareth - if I called you a "Bush apologist" I think you would object, and you would be entitled to object, because it would be a gross distortion of your point of view.

Is it really that difficult to avoid sinking into that mode of argument?

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Jun 03 - 09:18 AM

Hey Bobert, if that's your exhibit A - no wonder you keep adding 2 + 2 and getting an answer that = 5.

Told you I could predict that you wouldn't check up on the wording of the relevant UN Resolutions and remits of IAEA, UNSCOM & UNMOVIC to find references dating back years to WMD Programmes - knew you wouldn't do that because it doesn't suit your arguement - bit inconvenient that isn't it - damn the answer's five again.

No Bobert I am not on the Bush pay-roll, never have been, where you and I differ is that you have a bee in your bonnet about the last Presidential election that totally prohibits objectivity when viewing anything connected with the current US Administration - I am not handicapped in that way. By the way the first of those three posts was written days ago, just as Mudcat crashed over here.

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: Gareth
Date: 17 Jun 03 - 09:32 AM

Kevin, By their deeds you will know them !!!!

I presume then you wish no war had taken place, and Saddam was still in place.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Jun 03 - 09:50 AM

Bobert - Maybe you ought to support the suicide bombers cause - your writing is becomming ranting. You sound like Bush. Your cause or no cause. Back to your Bible thumping -

NASCAR? Alright! Don't see that killin' stuff going on there. Nice peaceful Sunday activity that brings families together. Seems they have a prayer and singing of the National Anthem. Hmm - sounds pretty wholesome to me.

Teribus - I agree with you - facts and not rants -

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 17 Jun 03 - 10:06 AM

Gareth,
you always overlook the possibility that a person can easily at the same time wish for Saddam to lose power but still be against the war.

There are many things in this world I wish would change rather sooner than later but only for the tiniest fraction of these things I even come close to considering war/force as an acceptable means to speed the change.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: Gareth
Date: 17 Jun 03 - 11:15 AM

Mmm ! Wolfgang - Trouble is there are times when war is the lesser of two evils, and I fear that the simple elimination of Saddam Hussain by assasination as Bobert proposes, would have left the dynasty, and apparatus of repression intact.

On the more general point that notorious right wing pro Bush news paper The Gaurdian has this to say on the subject Click 'Ere

The second paragraph of William Shawcross's article says it all.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 17 Jun 03 - 11:32 AM

A good newspaper, know for offering more than one point of view. Here's another point of view of today from the same source:

Blair Accused of Exaggerating Iraqi Arms

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Jun 03 - 11:32 AM

Well I wouldn't exactly say that article was representative of the Guarian editorial line. But it just shows that it does print things which are contrary to its main stance.

My main trouble, Gareth, with your point is that the argument about getting rid of a vile dictator was not the main reason put to the populace in persuading us it was a good idea. It if was, and we had an honest and open debate about whther this in a valid reason for going to war and nobody changed their mind about why it was happening, mid sentence - then I might be a bit more understanding of those pushing for the war. But it wasn't, and a whole load of people were persuaded to go along with something on a false pretexts.

And in any case, it is hard to believe that it really all was about ridding Iraq of a dictator. If it was, why on earth did we start with Iraq. There are plenty of other countries with equally bad human rights abuses going on right now. Why aren't the very same people making huge representations to the UN about attacking Burma, Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan, China - over tibet, Russia - over Chechnya? No the argument you are now giving is only being championed now because its the only thing they have left.

Getting rid of Saddam may have been a desirable side effect, but I don't think we should back wars made on false pretexts, just because they may possibly have a desirable outcome in one sphere. There are wider consequences of war - especially wars with underhand motives.

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Jun 03 - 11:36 AM

Another view from The Guardian... an insightful article from Peter Preston:

The world won't forgive or forget

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Jun 03 - 01:28 PM

An "apologist for Saddam Hussein" would be someone who defended and justified the man and his regime. I haven't come across many of those here or anywhere else.

There were people who wanted to go to war to get rid of Stalin, back in the Forties and Fifties. The people who stopped this happening were not "apologists for Stalin" - they were people who believed that the overall consequences of that were likely to be disastrous.

We've yet to see what the full consequenes of the recent war, and of the manoeuvering that brought it about, will turn out to be.

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: DougR
Date: 17 Jun 03 - 02:16 PM

True, Kevin, true. Not nearly enough time has passed to reach judgement on whether the war was justifiable or not. In time, those WMDs everyone is so concerned about might even be found ...or at least we may learn what happened to them.

Bobert: It seems to me that in the relm of "gotcha", Teribus "gotcha"! Fear not, however. You are not alone. It appears to me he "got" Don and Amos too!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Jun 03 - 02:36 PM

Subjectivity, glorious subjectivity...it is the delight of all opinionated people. With joy we leap upon the apparent inconsistencies and errors in our opponents' thinking, their failure to appreciate the painfully obvious, their knee-jerk thinking, and their lack of appreciation for THE FACTS...(ah, yes, those volumes and volumes of marvelous facts that we dig up to support our favourite postion and opinion...a marvel of impartiality and objectivity that it is...)

Such fun. If I could spare 5 or 6 hours a day, I would outtalk all of you on it (except maybe Teribus)... :-)

But I can't.

Maybe see you after lunch. Have fun arguing and proving how absolutely right you all are in the meantime. :-)

Too bad Saddam and Bush can't log on here and argue about it directly. That would be very entertaining, and I'm sure they have even more facts at their fingertips than we do.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Got WMDs?
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Jun 03 - 03:12 PM

It is typical of Bush apologists to accuse those who are critical or dubious of the Bush administration of being unpatriotic, or of a whole variety of other epithets, such as accusing them of being "Saddam apologists." This is, of course, an attempt to intimidate the critics or the questioners into shutting up and stop asking embarrassing questions. This is a pathetic and contemptible tactic.

Also, Teribus, I keep posting that link to the Project of the New American Century because it not only explains—proudly—what the Bush administration is up to, that particular "think tank" IS the Bush administration. Go to the "Statement of Purpose" link, scroll down, and read the signatories.

'Nuff said!

Don Firth