BS: Duped by the Mullahs

Subject: RE: BS: Duped by the Mullahs
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 May 04 - 07:56 PM

Of course, the were not found during the first 10 years of inspections... Seems that they had not been built yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Duped by the Mullahs
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 May 04 - 07:53 PM

"and they aren't even any use as a deterrent unless you've got a method for delivery"

And this was the reason the UN resolutions prohibited him from having the longer range rockets which the inspectors DID discover, and were watching the destruction of at a rate somewhat less than the rate of production of those rockets by his factories.

Subject: RE: BS: Duped by the Mullahs
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 May 04 - 07:50 PM

I am going by the reports

The problem is picking out which reports to believe. There have been so many that started out firm and became tentative and eventually dropped out of sight entirely.

Subject: RE: BS: Duped by the Mullahs
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 May 04 - 07:45 PM

An artillery shell consists of a warhead, a propellent charge, and a primer of some kind. The warhead for a chemical weapon is a different one than the one for HE. I am going by the reports that the stockpile of warheads found were for chemical munitions.

And the comments about WMD by brucie are still valid- The US defined the use of chemical OR biological agents to be equivalent to the use of nuclear weapons in a battle environment. This was a deterrent against Soviet forces using chemical or biological weapons, when OUR stockpile of WMD consists mostly of nuclear devices.

"The use of WMDs in a tactical situation opens a facet of warfare that Iraq was not prepared for. US policy has been very clear for decades (ever since MAD): use them on us and the wrath of Shiva will fall on you, because we will use them back. "

A WMD is a WMD is a WMD.

Subject: RE: BS: Duped by the Mullahs
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 May 04 - 07:36 PM

No, I don't understand it, but I'm taking the word of people described in the media as experts. I imagine you are taking the word of different experts. Maybe yours are right, maybe mine are.

"In the Iraqi arsenal, a warhead is a warhead - an empty ordnance space strapped to a missile. What matters is the payload, be it explosive or chemical or nuclear. The item placed in the warhead denotes the designation. These warheads were stone-cold empty, so by definition they are not 'chemical warheads.' They are, in fact, nothing, because they were loaded with no payload. Furthermore, the word 'warhead' is in itself misleading, as these were artillery munitions." (William Rivers Pitt - Author "War on Iraq")

............................

There is a big difference between having a few nuclear weapons

I don't think anyone seriously thought that Saddam had any nuclear weapons. I don't think anyone even claimed that he did (which isn't the same thing). The stories (punctured fairly quickly) were about his supposedly having had people going around trying to get the ingredients together to cook some up.   And nuclear weapons are pretty useless for fighting an invasion, and they aren't even any use as a deterrent unless you've got a method for delivery.(Such as having them, installed in your embassy basements in your enemies' capital cities.)

The more plausible claims were about chemical weapons, which he had used, and which would have had a devastating effect on a ground invasion force.

Subject: RE: BS: Duped by the Mullahs
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 May 04 - 07:20 PM

"Well, as I understand it, the empty warheads were such that they could be filled with just about anything, such as high explosive. It's a bit like saying a lorry container could be filled with chemical warfare ingredients; it would be quite true but not very meaningful."


As has been brought up before, the warheads for chemical weapons are NOT the same as those for HE, or DP anti-armor. You DON'T understand it.

Subject: RE: BS: Duped by the Mullahs
From: Peace
Date: 28 May 04 - 07:07 PM

Mc G of H:

I am in agreement with you on all but one point. ". . . his failure to use them [WMDs] demonstrated prtetty conclusively that he hadn't got them to use."

The use of WMDs in a tactical situation opens a facet of warfare that Iraq was not prepared for. US policy has been very clear for decades (ever since MAD): use them on us and the wrath of Shiva will fall on you, because we will use them back. You may be accurate, but I ain't so sure about that. There is a big difference between having a few nuclear weapons and having way far lots. The side with way far lots will 'win' every time. "Where they make a desert, they call it peace." (Tacitus?)

Subject: RE: BS: Duped by the Mullahs
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 May 04 - 06:57 PM

Well, as I understand it, the empty warheads were such that they could be filled with just about anything, such as high explosive. It's a bit like saying a lorry container could be filled with chemical warfare ingredients; it would be quite true but not very meaningful.

The evidence so far seems to indicate that the artillery shell containing some Sarin was a junked one they'd retrieved. I imagine if they'd known it contained Sarin they might have used it in a more effective way.

As to why, if he'd got rid of all his WMDs, as he claimed to have, Saddam didn't allow unlimited access, there are several theories about that, aside from the one that he was lying. The two most plausible are that (a) he could see that there were plans for an invasion, and could have hoped that the invaders might be deterred if they thought he actually had an arsenal up his sleeve, and (b) that he knew that a lot of Iraqis didn't like him much, and if they realised that he hadn't actually got anything up his sleeve, they might take him out.

I think Saddam was a fool, but then that is a fairly common condition among heads of state. I think it's probably something to do with having their feet too far from the ground and their head in the clouds.

Once the invasion was in progress, it seemed evident to me then, as it does now, that his failure to use them demonstrated pretty conclusively that he hadn't got them to use.

Subject: RE: BS: Duped by the Mullahs
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 May 04 - 06:56 PM

Well, as I understand it, the empty warheads were such that they could be filled with just about anything, such as high explosive. It's a bit like saying a lorry container could be filled with chemical warfare ingredients; it would be quite true but not very meaningful.

The evidence so far seems to indicate that the artillery shell containing some Sarin was a junked one they'd retrieved. I imagine if they'd known it contained Sarin they might have used it in a more effective way.

As to why, if he'd got rid of all his WMDs, as he claimed to have, Saddam didn't allow unlimited access, there are several theories about that, aside from the one that he was lying. The two most plausible are that (a) he could see that there were plans for an invasion, and could have hoped that the invaders might be deterred if they thought he actually had an arsenal up his sleeve, and (b) that he knew that a lot of Iraqis didn't like him much, and if they released that he hadn't actually got anything up his sleeve, they might take him out.

I think Saddam was a fool, but then that is a fairly common condition among heads of state. I think it's probably something to do with having their feet too far from the ground and their head in the clouds.

Once the invasion was in progress, it seemed evident to me then, as it does now, that his failure to use them demonstrated pretty conclusively that he hadn't got them to use.

Subject: RE: BS: Duped by the Mullahs
From: DougR
Date: 28 May 04 - 04:55 PM

Good questions all, Beardedbruce.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Duped by the Mullahs
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 May 04 - 04:28 PM

"My view all along was that if he had them, he'd use them if invaded. If he didn't use them when invaded, it'd mean he hadn't got them. "


If he did NOT have them, why not allow the inspectors unlimited access, and show he did not. He had 12 years and 17 UN resolutions.

ANd the artillery shell with Sarin?

And the stockpile of empty chemical warfare warheads?

And all the other items prohibited by the UN resolutions that he bought with the Oil for Food monies?

Subject: RE: BS: Duped by the Mullahs
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 May 04 - 03:58 PM

Except that there is pretty strong evidence that many of the people in "the free world's intelligence services" who actually had some relevant expertise were pretty sceptical on the subject. But I imagine, even if that stuff ever got through to Bush level, it would have been in the small print, and not in the simplified summary that he might have got round to reading.

So agreed, Bush probably wasn't lying, any more than a newscaster reading the autocue is lying when he reads the words in front of him.

Subject: RE: BS: Duped by the Mullahs
From: DougR
Date: 28 May 04 - 02:01 PM

Not so, Michaelr, Bush thought there were WMDs in Iraq because the free worlds intelligence services THOUGHT there were WMDs in Iraq. Incidentially, there still MAY be.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Duped by the Mullahs
From: GUEST
Date: 28 May 04 - 10:12 AM

This is sooooo pathetic. It wasnt our fault, the Iranians made us do it!

Everyone knows that intelligence needs not to be taken at face value, but assessed rated on where it is coming from, what the motives of the sources are etc. When it was known that intelligence was being based on Iraqi defectors and the opposition in exile, many voice pointed out that the intelligence might be dubious due the the motivation of the source _ ie they wanted saddam deposed to increase their chance of gaining power. Knowing this, the powers that be still regarded much of it as rock solid evidence. They made up their mind to attack first and then chose their sources to back them up, regardless of whether the intelligence was flawed or not. To choose to believe dodgy sources, and then blame the source when you are proved wrong is just hilarious!

Subject: RE: BS: Duped by the Mullahs
From: GUEST,sledge
Date: 28 May 04 - 04:32 AM

Don't think so, the pre-emptive use of even small nuclear weapons would turn the US into an international Pariah. The justification would have to be monumental and just think of the backlash from nuking an islmaic country.

Subject: RE: BS: Duped by the Mullahs
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 28 May 04 - 01:41 AM

"Anyone want to start a betting pool to see which country; Iran, Syria, or Pakistan, will be the next to get it between the eyes?"

Damascus by Christmas   $10.


"In the case of Pakistan, I'm thinking maybe it'll be a "pre-emptive" nuclear attack."

The US is developing 'micro tactical nukes'...

Subject: RE: BS: Duped by the Mullahs
From: Peace
Date: 27 May 04 - 09:03 PM

I think he had 'em and moved them when the US invaded.

Subject: RE: BS: Duped by the Mullahs
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 May 04 - 11:16 AM

That was very probably the reason Iraq wasn't actually invaded in 1991, not so as to displace Saddam.

Subject: RE: BS: Duped by the Mullahs
From: GUEST
Date: 27 May 04 - 07:23 AM

MGOH - "My view all along was that if he had them, he'd use them if invaded. If he didn't use them when invaded, it'd mean he hadn't got them."

He definitely had them in 1991 and didn't use them then.

Subject: RE: BS: Duped by the Mullahs
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 May 04 - 05:57 AM

I think if you checked back you'd find that in most cases those kind of comments would have been accompanied by an "if", Gareth.

My view all along was that if he had them, he'd use them if invaded. If he didn't use them when invaded, it'd mean he hadn't got them.

Subject: RE: BS: Duped by the Mullahs
From: Gareth
Date: 27 May 04 - 05:14 AM

If this version of events is correct then it wasn't just the CIA who were duped.

Or have some Catters forgotten thier pre liberation stance in that they were certain Iraq had WMD but -

He would never use them
or
The inspectors will find them
or
"We" sold them to him in the first place, etc.

My oh my, isn't memory a terrible thing.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Duped by the Mullahs
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 May 04 - 05:10 PM

Talk about being mauled by a dupa !

Subject: RE: BS: Duped by the Mullahs
From: Peace
Date: 26 May 04 - 04:20 PM

No new admin would be well advised to keep Wolfowitz, Cheney, etc. Bush is too stupid to take a shit by himself; the real power is behind the throne (in a manner of speaking).

Subject: RE: BS: Duped by the Mullahs
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 May 04 - 04:12 PM

That doesn't mean it's not worth ditching Bush. That would change the political climate in which the new administration was working, and that could strengthen the hand of the good guys in there, and weaken the bastards who'll be there as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Duped by the Mullahs
From: CarolC
Date: 26 May 04 - 03:21 PM

Precisely.

Subject: RE: BS: Duped by the Mullahs
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 26 May 04 - 02:59 PM

Oh Dear...

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Duped by the Mullahs
From: CarolC
Date: 26 May 04 - 02:55 PM

What McGrath said. I guess we'll find out who they are if and/or when Kerry gets elected.

Subject: RE: BS: Duped by the Mullahs
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 May 04 - 02:30 PM

I have a horrible feeling they'll turn up all right. They always do.

Subject: RE: BS: Duped by the Mullahs
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 26 May 04 - 02:13 PM

But who are the Cheney's, Wolfowitz's, Perle's etc., of the Kerry camp, should the Dems get elected?

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Duped by the Mullahs
From: CarolC
Date: 26 May 04 - 02:02 PM

You are joking, of course...

No, I'm not joking at all.

With regard to any blemishes on the Bush administration as a result of the war with Iraq, and this Chalabi business, it looks like it's Bush himself, and maybe Rumsfeld, who are being damaged the most, but I don't see the real agitators for war with Iraq, people like Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, Feif, etc. getting any heat for this debacle at all. But as I've said before, Bush is just a puppet. Getting rid of him won't really change anything with regard to the agenda the US has in other parts of the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Duped by the Mullahs
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 26 May 04 - 01:50 PM

I see that Bush is moving troops from that other area of 'The Axis Of Evil', the South Korean border with the North.

It seems that he is already stretching his resources, as it is.

I would hope that a bigger anti-war lobby in the States would mobilise if there was ever even a whisper of it.

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Duped by the Mullahs
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 26 May 04 - 01:46 PM

CarolC,
I don't see this as a very successfull sleight-of-hand, if that is what it's meant to be. The Bush administration is still the one that started the pre-emptive war against Iraq, no avoiding that fact. And there was significant doubt already as to the excuse/premise (i.e. the existence of WMDs). The UN, the inspectors, a number of countries like France-Germany-Russia, and millions of protestors were telling Bush so before he started. That is also an unavoidable fact - they were warned.

For me, all this episode does is to add insult to injury (deservedly so), because it indicates a naivete in the Bush administration that is nothing less than childish and foolish. If the claims about Iran's involvement prove true, it means that the biggest superpower in the world was made to appear a superfool by Iran. Not only are we angry at Bush's administration for starting the war, and for its conduct during and after it, we would be also given cause to laugh at it - if only we could, in the current climate.

How much credibility is left for the US now in the world... precious little. At least a generation of rebuilding will be needed. And Britain will not go unscathed either - I worry that the "lapdog" image will stick.

Personally, I take it for granted that neither the Bush nor the Blair administrations will be returned to office. I care little for that, they have earned it, not least through ineptitude. But I do care that both countries need to rebuild their image, and in this context resignation or impeachment would be a far better step than simply waiting out the time till the elections.

Subject: RE: BS: Duped by the Mullahs
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 May 04 - 01:37 PM

"for a good time to come" - well, maybe up to November. Another war at this stage would probably be seen as a vote loser.

If Bush wins, all bets are off. If he loses, it'll be quite scary too, because he'll still be in power for a couple of months, and with nothing to lose...

Subject: RE: BS: Duped by the Mullahs
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 26 May 04 - 01:23 PM

"Anyone want to start a betting pool to see which country; Iran, Syria, or Pakistan, will be the next to get it between the eyes?"

You are joking, of course...

I'm afraid the US have played all the military cards they're going to play in that region for a good time to come.

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Duped by the Mullahs
From: CarolC
Date: 26 May 04 - 01:02 PM

That's a very slick little piece of political slight-of-hand, this attempt to shift responsibility for the "pre-emptive" war against Iraq onto Iran and off of the Neo-cons in the Bush administration. And it also serves their purpose of beating the war drums for a "pre-emptive" attack on Iran as well. Very slick indeed.

Anyone want to start a betting pool to see which country; Iran, Syria, or Pakistan, will be the next to get it between the eyes?

In the case of Pakistan, I'm thinking maybe it'll be a "pre-emptive" nuclear attack.

Subject: RE: BS: Duped by the Mullahs
From: flattop
Date: 26 May 04 - 12:13 PM

Sounds like Bush is cannibalizing his small circle of congenial collaborators.

Reminds me of a story in Christopher Hibbert's great book, The Roots of Evil: A Social History of Crime and Punishment. The book details the great cruelty that took place in the British "justice" system over the years.   

The story was in a section where Hibbert was writing about Britain sending prisoners to Australia after the American Revolution. The American's had more or less closed their borders to British riff-raft (except for British immigrants.) I believe the criminals sent south were petty criminals. Britain didn't have television back then so they made the most out of publicly mutilating and killing anyone who was hungry enough to steal more than a loaf of bread.

Hibbert talked about the severe punishments in the penal camps - quoting witnesses seeing blood gushing down a flogged prisoner's back and squashing out his shoes at every step - a dog licking the blood off the triangles and ants carrying away pieces of human flesh - a pair of scourgers relieving each other so that they could inflict one hundred lashes in about an hour without getting exhausted - both bespattered with blood like a couple of butchers.

Hibbert follows this on page 146 with a little story that Bush and his buddy Chalabi made me remember.
[
… convicts committed crimes so that they might be executed; sometimes three men drew lots to decide who should be murdered, who victim and who witness; others went off to almost certain death in the wilderness rather than go on living in the fearful camps.

One of these men was Alexander Pierce whose experience, horrifying as they are, were not exceptional. Pierce and some of the other men who were working in a gang on one of the islands decided to steal a boat and make their escape to the mainland. Their theft was discovered and they made for the barren hills where after a time they became obsessed by thoughts of food. One of them said he was so hungry that he could eat a man. The likes had been done before, he said, and it 'tasted much like pork.'

That night, another member of the gang, who had once acted as flogger at the convict station, had his throat cut. Some of his companions bled him, cut off his head and eviscerated the trunk. They fried his heart and ate it. Four days later another man was killed; and while eating parts of his heart and liver yet another man was struck down from behind by one of his fellow cannibals. Only Pierce and two others were left now, and these three men went on alone. One of them lagged behind the others and fell down exhausted. The leading man, Greenhill, went back and finding him asleep killed him with an axe. Greenhill strapped the axe to his body so that Pierce should not take it from him and rejoined his now remaining companion.

That night after Greenhill had gone to sleep with the axe strapped to his body, Pierce, so he later confessed, began to fear he would be killed in the morning. So he got up and killed Greenhill instead. He cut off an arm and part of a thigh and went on by himself. In the morning he wandered into a flock of sheep and killing a lamb, he ate it raw.

Soon after this he was recaptured. But he escaped again the following year with a man named Cox whose mangled body was found some days later. When Pierce was captured for the second time he was still carrying the bread and pork and the fish with which he had escaped. He had killed Cox, he said, because food from the human body, particularily the thick part of the arm, was 'by far preferable.'

Subject: RE: BS: Duped by the Mullahs
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 May 04 - 11:56 AM

The truth about all this won't be known for quite some time, if ever. Fort all we know, even if Chalabi was passing on lies he'd got from Iranian contacts, they might have been passing on lies they had got from their USA contacts.

The suggestion in quite a lot of commentqries in the press here is that all this is really a civil war within Washington.

Subject: RE: BS: Duped by the Mullahs
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 26 May 04 - 11:39 AM

The latest edition of Newsweek Online, has a great piece by Evan Thomas and Mark Hosenball, entitled The Rise and Fall of Chalabi: Bush's Mr. Wrong.

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Duped by the Mullahs
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 26 May 04 - 02:43 AM

No surprise really. When there's a loose gun in the world, someone will find a use for it. Looks like someone may have done so. Let's watch what flies the next few days.

Naivete and gung-ho attitudes were never an alternative for diplomacy and intelligence.

Who'd be in Georgie's shoes this morning...

Subject: RE: BS: Duped by the Mullahs
From: michaelr
Date: 26 May 04 - 02:14 AM

Oops, forgot to post the quote:

Chalabi once was being groomed by the United States as a possible successor to Saddam. However, the U.S. State Department did not share the Pentagon's enthusiasm for him, and Chalabi became a liability after no significant weapons of mass destruction were found in postwar Iraq.

Such weapons were cited by the United States and Britain as the primary justification for the Iraq war, and Chalabi's network of Iraqi exiles in the Iraqi National Congress had provided the Bush administration intelligence reports of their existence.

On Saturday, a senior Iraqi official alleged that Chalabi's security chief, Araz Habib, was wanted by Iraqi and coalition authorities for alleged links to Iran's intelligence service.

Subject: BS: Duped by the Mullahs
From: michaelr
Date: 26 May 04 - 01:49 AM

Looks like the joke's on Dubya, folks...

He believed Chalabi's info that Saddam had WMDs. He started a war on that info. He didn't find any WMDs, but he killed a lot of people. And he killed any residue of good will left in the world toward the US.

Now it appears that this Chalabi guy may be an Iranian agent who deliberately fed Dubya misinformation to get the US to get rid of Iran's old enemy Saddam.

In effect, the US was duped into enacting the Muslim fundamentalist agenda. While enraging the Muslim regular people.

This is just the tip of the iceberg.

No cheers here.
Michael