These aren't the WMD you were looking for......

Status
Not open for further replies.
I also agree with Thomas Friedman's words.

I'm not, GoRon, but I'll throw my opinion in... I don't believe it has backfired. Indeed we are not feared by the average Iraqi, Muslum, etc. But we don't want to be since fear can be used as a weapon against us. Same as mistrust.

However mistrust is a result of miscommunication which can be changed. Fear breads hatrid which lasts generations.

We havn't accomplished our goal yet. It is to transform extremist(violent) muslims to a Amish-like extreme(but peaceful and coexistant) faction.

As for GTSteve's comment on SaudiArabia vs. Iraq, it's much more complicated than that. And everyone knows that's liberal rethoric(not completely baseless, but blown out of porortion). Saudi Arabia is HUGE compared to Iraq. It is loaded with mistrust and hatrid of America. But there are also a lot of would be supporters or at least (in vast majority if played right)non-combatants.

Attacking Saudi Arabia would be like attacking Russia in the Cold War, instead of Vietnam. Sure it's a bigger enemy, but... at what cost. Iraq provides a buffer between Iran and Saudi Arabia(and puts "friendly" nations on either side of iran). It's a much more amiable solution that trying to kill off everyone who disagrees with "us".
 
In January 2004,Thomas Friedman wrote: "The real reason for this war — which was never stated — was to burst what I would call the 'terrorism bubble,' which had built up during the 1990s.

"This bubble was a dangerous fantasy, believed by way too many people in the Middle East. This bubble said that it was OK to plow airplanes into the World Trade Center, commit suicide in Israeli pizza parlors, praise people who do these things as 'martyrs' and donate money to them through religious charities.

"This bubble had to be burst, and the only way to do it was to go right into the heart of the Arab world and smash something -- to let everyone know that we, too, are ready to fight and die to preserve our open society. Yes, I know, it's not very diplomatic — it's not in the rule book — but everyone in the neighborhood got the message: Henceforth, you will be held accountable.

"Why Iraq, not Saudi Arabia or Pakistan? Because we could — period."

"You will be held accountable."

And would that include Friedman's brothers-in-print at the NY Times?
 
Why O Why do people keep saying Bush said Iraq was an immenant threat. I know through propaganda. Go look up the dang speech. He said BEFORE they become an immenant. If we waited till they were an immenant threat it would be too late. Good Grief I am tired of all the spinning. You can not make a rational decision if you do not know the truth. Remember all the screeching about preventive war. Well that was where it began then the progaganda started.:banghead:
 
I am also tired of the why did we not attack Pakistan or Saudia Arabia????Does anyone really think the LIbs would do that. It is stupid to argue that way. Do they have any idea what would happen if Saudia Arabia was attacked. Do they want a world wide depression. Heck they are using the gasoline prices now as a political hammer. Saudia Ruling family is the only thing that keeps the whole country being taken over by Radical Islamists. Do they want that. Do the really want us to attack Pakistian a nuclear armed country. It is ignorant.
 
No, Kim, they want us to fail. Sad isn't it.

They want to run the world in a way that they can "feel" good about themselves and how "thoughtful" they are and how "diverse" their thinking is. Don't you know that they are the elite? They know the answer?

Oh, and if we fail, and people die, it never is their fault. They fight wars with one hand tied behind their back and then blame it on someone else (Vietnam, Nixon).

There is no Democrat who is qualified or competant to be Commander in Chief. That is the way they want it, so we can go to the UN on our hands and knees and beg them to fix our problems.
 
We can believe 99% of the ELECTED officials (Dems and Reps) who looked at the intelligence and came to the same conclusion- the same conclusion most of the world intelligence came to; Saddam had WMDs and was a threat.

The bottom line is that a majority of the Democrats voted to give Bush authority to invade Iraq. They saw the same intellegence as everybody else, and the same reports from the UN inspectors. After 911 they made the decision to be proactive. Now they want to abdicate all responsibility for their decision, and cut and run.

No. Most did NOT have access to the Top Secret NIE. Most were unaware
of the internal intelligence disagreements over alleged WMDs. The majority
of our elected officials got the same trickle out leaks about "mushroom
clouds" from Condi and others. They trusted and went along just like I did
at the time.

The point is, the truth has come out. The spin-masters can keep wrapping
this turd in tinfoil, but those of us who've blown our noses can now smell
it in the room.

Furthermore, this is NOT CUT AND RUN. I did my tour in Iraq on year three
and the current rotation will be through most of year 4 for Iraq (Afghan is
longer). Four full years will be complete in Iraq by next Spring. Given our
country's other wars, I fail to see how starting redeployment "sometime" next
year is akin to cut and run. The people I see chirping the don't cut and run
mantra on TV have never done a deployment --probably not even worn a
uniform. Given this and their apparent lack of historical knowledge, they are
not qualified to make any statements about how long "we" should spend
there.

Man, *I'm* ashamed to say that I was fooled by Bush - I voted for him in 2000.

Didn't take me long to figure him out though.

As usual, Biker sums up common sense in just a couple lines.

I'm even more stubborn since I voted for the guy twice. I was skeptical
by 04, but Kerry seemed worse.

I'm able to admit I made a mistake. Let's find the courage to do that as a
nation and stop throwing blood and money into the sand trap. This isn't
a friggin' golf game.

We are getting good at arming our future enemies

We have armed ALL of our enemies. And, I have to agree with Murtha that
this current foreign fiasco is draining our military resources to the direct
benefit of China. I posted a long time back that US involvement in Iraq
was going to benefit China and the EU far more than us. Short of a draft,
there will not be enough people available should a problem come up again
within the next decade, let alone where would the MONEY come from.

When I see things like this

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2239088,00.html

I have to wonder what the whole point of it all is......we're just going
to end up throwing away good people (our soldiers) over lies, a failed
neo-con philosophy, and a foreign country that could care less about
our sacrifices when all is said and done :banghead:
 
FYI, Steve, it's a war in Iraq, not on Iraq. I.e., we're helping them, and if they don't like it, tough cookies. If we're picking on anybody, it's Saddam Hussein and a lot of similar monsters.
I bet they enjoy our help, too. Considering the city of Baghdad gets less than half the electricity they had during Saddam's rule. Oh, and the daily civil war going on between the Shiites and Sunnis, I don't remember that during Saddam's rule either.

Saddam is now in custody, as is most of the former Iraqi higher-ups in the government. What other monsters are in Iraq similar to Saddam? Osama is in Pakistan, Jong-Il is in N Korea, and who knows who is in charge in Sudan. I don't see us doing much in any of those situations.

Saudi Arabia is HUGE compared to Iraq. It is loaded with mistrust and hatrid of America. But there are also a lot of would be supporters or at least (in vast majority if played right)non-combatants.
Sounds a lot like Iraq, actually. The Kurds pretty much love the US, and a large portion of Iraqi civilians don't want to pick up arms and fight the US, they want to live a normal life. So why couldn't we have done it another way?
 
I'm even more stubborn since I voted for the guy twice. I was skeptical by 04, but Kerry seemed worse.
Therein lies the rub... Between Gore in 2000 and Kerry in '04, who was the better choice? The lesser of two evils is still an unfortunate choice in some manner of thinking. The greater of the two evils would still (probably) follow an earlier admin's position that the enemy was a white American who owns guns, not some religious fanatic 'over there' who bombed American installations at will.

This admin used the "Fear" of 9-11 well. Spun it "just right". Sold it easily. Had a bill ready in less than 30 days and called it "The PATRIOT Act" which passed almost 100% with no one actually, you know, reading it or debating it to discuss the long term ramifications. Went to war on Iraq based on a concept of fear for our safety as opposed to "Liberation of a People we could use as an Ally in a Place we need some influence" (hard to sell Americans on that concept unless we're attacked first, witness Germany, Japan circa 1937-'41)

Hook, Line AND Sinker.

OK. You get lemons... you make lemonade.

So the next real question will arise in the fall of 2008. Will it be a "Lesser of Two Evils" choice again? And what spin will the winner use to control power and influence whilst casting aspersion on the present administration and playing the world-wide game of chess to avoid a "Checkmate" here at home?

One final, cynical note... Does anyone here, REALLY, think that John Q. Public will learn or hear the REAL Truth from our government... or know it when we do hear it? Sad, that.
 
If it's so hard to impose a centralized gov't, why would the Taliban have such an easy time with it? Maybe they don't want to be governed by a foreign power?

The Taliban did not have an easy time of it, or a very good grasp on power in the whole country. One reason that Ahmed Shah Massoud "The lion of Panjshir." was assasinated hours before the attacks on September 11 2001. Or had you forgotten about the Northern Alliance?:neener:
 
One final, cynical note... Does anyone here, REALLY, think that John Q. Public will learn or hear the REAL Truth from our government... or know it when we do hear it? Sad, that.

Of course you won't know the real truth. It will be thoroughly spun and discredited by the liberal media LONG before you get it.

The question here is why has the MSM (CNN, Times, Wash Post, ABC, NBC, CBS, et al) so quiet on this subject? They certainly weren't that quiet when there was a recognition we hadn't been able to find any WMD? In fact you simply couldn't escape it. Where is all that reporting furor now? Even if it isn't the WMD we were looking for, you'd think they'd want to say something about it in terms of true, objective coverage.

Ahhhh...there's the problem!!!! True, objective coverage. Silly me!!!

Why take the chance that John Q Public might not follow along with their interpretation and spinning of this WMD disclosure and come to their own conclusions about it, thereby messing up their polling results for President Bush? Sure...there will be folks like Thin Black Line that'll buy whatever nonsense they sell. But there are people who think for themselves and realize the news jockey's are NOT political analysts...they're newspaper hawkers. If they talk about it, people become aware of it and perhaps draw their independent conclusions as many have here in this forum, and it's not in the interest of the liberal media for Bush to look good. Why? Because it makes them out to be exactly what they are....unprofessional journalists intent on pushing THEIR agenda which is to sell gloom and doom and make a bigger profit.

The issue here isn't politicians as much as it is media that wants to create disruption and furor. Those are the one's REALLY benefiting from all the coverage and extra papers they sell...not China.

And to Thin Black Line....yes I DID wear a uniform and I DID serve for 9 years. And I didn't serve in the desert, I served in the far east. And, unlike you, I didn't get a choice about it. And we spent a LOT more blood there in six months than we have in the entirety of our involvement with Iraq. And YES...IT IS CUT AND RUN. And if we don't finish things appropriately here, we will get the same results we got in Vietnam along with the discredit that goes with it.

By the way...we had our own version of media spinners back then too. They were called Jane Fonda. Some naive people bought into HER nonsense also.
 
Last edited:
B Easy
I work in microbiology and immunology at AECOM / Yeshiva U.

Glad you have the credentials to tell us about it and understand the issue. I did think you were saying the story was fake. I still stand by what I said about it clearly being a terror program designed to cause panic in the West....it was clearly aimed at us, no matter its efficacy.

Whether these weapons were degraded or not, they are proof that the shrieking "There were no WMD" crowd is wrong.
 
There is no Democrat who is qualified or competant to be Commander in Chief.

Mongo you nailed that on the head. The same folks taking us to task for invading Iraq are now urging us to attack the N. Korean Taepodong missile while it is sitting at the launch facility...an act of war.......against a nuclear power.:eek: A nuclear power thanks to Bill Clinton no less! :cuss:

Ashton Carter and former Clinton Defense Secretary Perry wrote an editorial telling Bush to launch the attack..... These are the same people who cut that crazy deal with Kim back in the mid 90s that helped him along with his nuclear ambitions.:banghead: God help us!



http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/6/22/103740.shtml?s=ic


National Security is too important to leave to the Democratic Party Amateur Hour....ever. Hell as this demonstrates we are still trying to clean up the last mess.....negotiated by Jimmy Carter and Maddy Albright in N. Korea....and they want power back?! As I said before God help us!



Former Defense Sec. Perry Wants N. Korean Missile Destroyed


Former defense secretary William J. Perry says the U.S. should launch a preemptive strike against the long-range ballistic missile that North Korea is reportedly preparing to launch.

In an opinion piece in the Washington Post, Perry and former assistant defense secretary Ashton B. Carter argue that if North Korea continues launch preparations, President Bush should immediately declare that the U.S. will destroy the Taepodong missile before it can be launched.

Perry and Carter suggest using a cruise missile launched from a submarine and carrying a high-explosive warhead.

"The effect on the Taepodong would be devastating," they write. "The multi-story, thin-skinned missile filled with high-energy fuel is itself explosive - the U.S. air strike would puncture the missile and probably cause it to explode.”

As President Bill Clinton's defense secretary, Perry oversaw preparation for air strikes on North Korean nuclear facilities in 1994 – strikes that were never carried out.

He has been a critic of the Bush administration's approach to North Korea, according to the Post

"We believe diplomacy might have precluded the current situation," Perry and Carter said. "But diplomacy has failed, and we cannot sit by and let this deadly threat mature."

On Wednesday, the U.S. ambassador to Japan stated that "all options are on the table" with regard to North Korea.
 
The same folks taking us to task for invading Iraq are now urging us to attack the N. Korean Taepodong missile while it is sitting at the launch facility...an act of war.......against a nuclear power. A nuclear power thanks to Bill Clinton no less!

if John Kerry can change his mind...and change it again...and again...and again...once again...
 
Thanks Gopguy. +1 on your post.

I would find the fact that the SMSM uses "experts" from previous failed Democratic administrations to comment on funny if it wasn't so tragic.
 
Thanks Gopguy. +1 on your post.

I would find the fact that the SMSM uses "experts" from previous failed Democratic administrations to comment funny


if it wasn't so tragic.

(double post, my bad)
 
And to Thin Black Line....yes I DID wear a uniform and I DID serve for 9 years. And I didn't serve in the desert, I served in the far east. And, unlike you, I didn't get a choice about it. And we spent a LOT more blood there in six months than we have in the entirety of our involvement with Iraq.

Believe me when I say that I'm thankful our armor and medical care are far
better than Vietnam --otherwise we would have a similar KIA. But you can't
measure "success" by our losses. You understand that I'm sure, but I get
tired of people who have no clue yet still harp that our casualties are
"not that bad." But, yeah, win a war "by making the other SOB die for his
country." However, there has to be a point to it since war is suppose to be
a means to an end. What is that "end" in Iraq? It keeps getting changed
every few months, doesn't it?

And YES...IT IS CUT AND RUN. And if we don't finish things appropriately here, we will get the same results we got in Vietnam along with the discredit that goes with it.

I read in the news recently about the secret Kissinger trip where it was
"ok" with the administration toward the end of the war if Vn fell. After
that meeting, the US lost 4,000 more soldiers before we pulled out. This
is not to insult you, but what was the point of staying in as long as we
did? What are our "results" with communist Vn now --free trade with a
communist regime.

So much for that BS "domino theory", huh? Choice or not, you got lied to
and I got lied to. But, it's not really an informed choice if people are
holding back on the info now is it. This is what happened with the alleged
WMDs.

I for one do not want to see OIF last as long as Vn since remaining there at
our current level of involvement seems rather useless. From the bean
counter perspective it's very expensive as a nation. Sure, there are some
select families that are making loads of money hand over fist from the
current situation, but this is bankrupting our country and hamstringing
the longterm health of our military.

Let the Iraqis do for themselves (or to themselves) at this point. We can
provide training and air. We can then do business with whoever is left
standing --just like we did with Vn.

Let's learn from our past mistakes:

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pentagon4/doc262.htm

Report by Mcnamara After Visit to Vietnam, 30 November 1965
....
5. Evaluation. We should be aware that deployments of the kind I have recommended will not guarantee success. US killed-in-action can be expected to reach 1000 a month, and the odds are even that we will be faced in early 1967 with a "no-decision" at an even higher level. My overall evaluation, nevertheless, is that the best chance of achieving our stated objectives lies in a pause followed, if it fails, by the deployments mentioned above.
 
?We gave Iraq WMDs to deal with Iran/USSR?

Who armed Saddam Hussein?
attachment.php

Why are US and UK blamed in the media, and USSR, France
and China get free passes?
 
Why are US and UK blamed in the media, and USSR, France
and China get free passes?

You're absolutely right on that. This is just to keep the dogs in the street
chasing each others' tails. All the G7 countries + China + Russia are
perfectly aware of who is doing business with who. They're fine with it
since this is Globalism and the people in control are made of teflon. Look
who's arming IRAN right now and who we (the US) still continue to do
business with anyway.....gotta keep the world going 'round now don't we?
 
Gopguy, the anti-war "he doesn't have WMDs!" crowd doesn't care about whether or not he has WMDs, IMO.

They're against any and all violent conflicts, even in self preservation.

Saddam could have been farting Tabun and Soman, and they still would find something else to complain about. :)
 
Believe me when I say that I'm thankful our armor and medical care are far
better than Vietnam --otherwise we would have a similar KIA. But you can't
measure "success" by our losses. You understand that I'm sure, but I get
tired of people who have no clue yet still harp that our casualties are
"not that bad." But, yeah, win a war "by making the other SOB die for his
country." However, there has to be a point to it since war is suppose to be
a means to an end. What is that "end" in Iraq? It keeps getting changed
every few months, doesn't it?

You might do yourself a favor by reading fewer liberal-press books about Vn and more time talking with folks that were really there.

Of course success isn't measured by losses, mistakes are. I think you left out a few essential ingredients other than armor and medical care that have lead to "less mistakes" (i.e. less casualties) in Iraq. Things like better armament, better intelligence, better electronic warfare, better targetting systems, better warfare strategies...but most importantly the one thing you've had that we didn't is a Commander-in-Chief and Secretary of Defense that have the guts and resolve to run the war based on what their commanders and feet on the ground are telling them we need to do to win, not what the polls are telling them about their popularity.

As a military man I am a combatant. I may have my political views which I'm entitled to, but that has nothing to do with my mission at hand. Tell me you want me to win a war, I'll win that war whether I believe in it or not because that's my job. All I ask of the politicians is that they stand behind me and give me what I need to win it. Don't vascilate one day to the next about whether or not you want me there. Let me do my job. That, my friend, is what YOU have that I didn't.

When you hear the term that Vn was a political war, it means that the politicians dictated war strategies and rules of engagements that would be most beneficial in maintaining their polls and reducing negative press. It would not have done us any good to have cruise missiles in Vn although we could have used them quite effectively, we weren't allowed to bomb the NVR due to the effect it would have on the polls at home. You are lucky to have someone at the top that realizes to win any conflict you let the "wild horses run." The people in the field will tell you what they need to win. THAT'S why you have less "mistakes" as measured by personnel losses.

Of course there's no doubt that the Domino Effect was nonsense. We know that now, but at the time, given the furor over socialism and the advances it had made, it seemed logical. We are all wise men in retrospect, but that doesn't make it a lie. A lie by definition is intentionally telling an untruth..something like what Clinton did with Monika and the blue stained dress. Bush made his case based on the intelligence he and numerous other countries had and agreed with the analysis on. That is not a lie. It may have been a misinterpretation, it may not have been. We'll know over time. If you can show ANY EVIDENCE he had information that suggested there were not WMD's there and intentionally mislead us, then THAT would be a lie. But so far all you and the liberal press have are conspiracy theories...not evidence. A lie is what Saddam said when he told the world in 1998 he had destroyed ALL his WMD capability. We know now for a FACT that was a lie.

Most importantly in terms of the Vn to Iraq comparison, we were not fighting an enemy that had sworn to destroy us and had demonstrated it numerous times by attacking the US and US interests world-wide. The Vn had ZERO interest in the US until we went there in conjunction with the French, and once we left they again returned to caring less about us. That is hardly the same situation. Do you really think that the terrorists in Iraq will lose interest in continuing to harm the US and US interests if we leave? Do you really think they will "play nice" with the elected government or will they be more likely to try to establish more of a Taliban-like system of government (I can't wait to open up trade with them)? Do you think Iraq and the whole of the middle-east and the world will be MORE or LESS stable if we withdraw and allow things to take their natural course? The difference here is the ENEMY and the nature and drive of that enemy to do us harm. THAT is a HUGE difference. Thank God we have a leader with the resolve to stick it out.

I can't believe you would suggest we simply provide training and air support to Iraq in a discussion regarding Iraq and Vn. How do you think we got ourselves into Vn in the first place under Kennedy? :banghead:

I agree with you on one thing. Let's learn from our past mistakes. And in that vein let's not let a bunch of liberal-leaning bleeding hearts who are the same one's that would suggest if we remove all guns we will remove all violence tell us what the right thing to do is in a war. War isn't pretty, but sometimes it's necessary. I agree that Vn was probably never necessary, but that wasn't what lost that war. We lost that war based on a lack of resolve to win.

Instead of reading your magazines and books on the subject, why don't you take this post down to your local VFW and ask each one of the Vn vets if everything I've said here isn't true. Maybe then you can overcome your indoctrination by the US socialist press.
 
Last edited:
You might do yourself a favor by reading fewer liberal-press books about Vn and more time talking with folks that were really there.

BTDT. I also know there are Vn vets who might be more vocal about the
policies and manipulations of information which led to the misuse of soldiers
in Iraq, but they would be put into the position of "If you can't support
the reasons for the war in Iraq, you can't support the troops." This is
a known fallacy for those capable of abstract throught, but it goes to
show the level of administrative public mastery when such people are
efficiently put into check. I can appreciate this level of ability even if
I don't like it.

As far as getting the right equipment and listening to the cdrs and "boots
on the ground." Are you serious? It was pressure from the *families*
--especially the NG-- that got IBA for each soldier and armor for the vehicles.
I've responded to equipment issues on previous threads. I wish I could say
more but then opsec would come into play.

Of course there's no doubt that the Domino Effect was nonsense. We know that now, but at the time, given the furor over socialism and the advances it had made, it seemed logical. We are all wise men in retrospect, but that doesn't make it a lie. A lie by definition is intentionally telling an untruth.

Purposeful omission of critical relevant information from key people who vote
on policies is manipulation intended for a specific outcome. When those
omitting are also the same ones spouting only one side of what turned
out to be questionable information, there are those who would call that a lie.
They were aware of both sides, yet publicly only picked one. That's normally
called a "lie by omission."

I can't believe you would suggest we simply provide training and air support to Iraq in a discussion regarding Iraq and Vn. How do you think we got ourselves into Vn in the first place under Kennedy?

So how long do you suggest we should garrision Iraq and keep them as our
protectorate? Ten more years? 50? Do we wait until there is peace in
the ME when there has never been peace in the ME? :banghead: We
have provided security for far too long in Europe as it is.

Instead of reading your magazines and books on the subject,

I acknowledge hindsight by authors who could be tainted by bias, but that
does not undo the predictions made by those controlling policy at the
time:

1965.... We should be aware that deployments of the kind I have recommended will not guarantee success.

Please note throughout my entire post history that I am still in favor of
going after terrorists. It can be argued this could be done without large
scale invasions. Likewise, long-term foreign occupation is another matter
entirely. The US can protect itself while not taking on the burdens of
a British-style Empire where the sun never sets on our flag. Let's not
repeat the brit's mistake. Let's set up fortress America where we secure
our own borders.
 
Here is an excerpt from the NIE that folks in Congress got to see, Its from a cached CIA webpage:

Key Judgments
Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs
Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade.

Baghdad hides large portions of Iraq's WMD efforts. Revelations after the Gulf war starkly demonstrate the extensive efforts undertaken by Iraq to deny information.

Since inspections ended in 1998, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort, energized its missile program, and invested more heavily in biological weapons; most analysts assess Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.


Iraq's growing ability to sell oil illicitly increases Baghdad's capabilities to finance WMD programs; annual earnings in cash and goods have more than quadrupled.

Iraq largely has rebuilt missile and biological weapons facilities damaged during Operation Desert Fox and has expanded its chemical and biological infrastructure under the cover of civilian production.

Baghdad has exceeded UN range limits of 150 km with its ballistic missiles and is working with unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), which allow for a more lethal means to deliver biological and, less likely, chemical warfare agents.

Although Saddam probably does not yet have nuclear weapons or sufficient material to make any, he remains intent on acquiring them.
How quickly Iraq will obtain its first nuclear weapon depends on when it acquires sufficient weapons-grade fissile material.


If Baghdad acquires sufficient weapons-grade fissile material from abroad, it could make a nuclear weapon within a year.

Without such material from abroad, Iraq probably would not be able to make a weapon until the last half of the decade.

Iraq's aggressive attempts to obtain proscribed high-strength aluminum tubes are of significant concern. All intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons and that these tubes could be used in a centrifuge enrichment program. Most intelligence specialists assess this to be the intended use, but some believe that these tubes are probably intended for conventional weapons programs.


Based on tubes of the size Iraq is trying to acquire, a few tens of thousands of centrifuges would be capable of producing enough highly enriched uranium for a couple of weapons per year.

Baghdad has begun renewed production of chemical warfare agents, probably including mustard, sarin, cyclosarin, and VX. Its capability was reduced during the UNSCOM inspections and is probably more limited now than it was at the time of the Gulf war, although VX production and agent storage life probably have been improved.


Saddam probably has stocked a few hundred metric tons of CW agents.

The Iraqis have experience in manufacturing CW bombs, artillery rockets, and projectiles, and probably possess CW bulk fills for SRBM warheads, including for a limited number of covertly stored, extended-range Scuds.
All key aspects—R&D, production, and weaponization—of Iraq's offensive BW program are active and most elements are larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf wa</b>r.


Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating BW agents and is capable of quickly producing and weaponizing a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery by bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers, and covert operatives, including potentially against the US Homeland.

Baghdad has established a large-scale, redundant, and concealed BW agent production capability, which includes mobile facilities; these facilities can evade detection, are highly survivable, and can exceed the production rates Iraq had prior to the Gulf war.
Iraq maintains a small missile force and several development programs, including for a UAV that most analysts believe probably is intended to deliver biological warfare agents.


Gaps in Iraqi accounting to UNSCOM suggest that Saddam retains a covert force of up to a few dozen Scud-variant SRBMs with ranges of 650 to 900 km.

Iraq is deploying its new al-Samoud and Ababil-100 SRBMs, which are capable of flying beyond the UN-authorized 150-km range limit.

Baghdad's UAVs—especially if used for delivery of chemical and biological warfare (CBW) agents—could threaten Iraq's neighbors, US forces in the Persian Gulf, and the United States if brought close to, or into, the US Homeland.

Iraq is developing medium-range ballistic missile capabilities, largely through foreign assistance in building specialized facilities.


Discussion
Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs
In April 1991, the UN Security Council enacted Resolution 687 requiring Iraq to declare, destroy, or render harmless its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) arsenal and production infrastructure under UN or International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) supervision. UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 687 also demanded that Iraq forgo the future development or acquisition of WMD.

Baghdad's determination to hold onto a sizeable remnant of its WMD arsenal, agents, equipment, and expertise has led to years of dissembling and obstruction of UN inspections. Elite Iraqi security services orchestrated an extensive concealment and deception campaign to hide incriminating documents and material that precluded resolution of key issues pertaining to its WMD programs.


Iraqi obstructions prompted the Security Council to pass several subsequent resolutions demanding that Baghdad comply with its obligations to cooperate with the inspection process and to provide United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and IAEA officials immediate and unrestricted access to any site they wished to inspect.

Although outwardly maintaining the facade of cooperation, Iraqi officials frequently denied or substantially delayed access to facilities, personnel, and documents in an effort to conceal critical information about Iraq's WMD programs.
Successive Iraqi declarations on Baghdad's pre-Gulf war WMD programs gradually became more accurate between 1991 and 1998, but only because of sustained pressure from UN sanctions, Coalition military force, and vigorous and robust inspections facilitated by information from cooperative countries. Nevertheless, Iraq never has fully accounted for major gaps and inconsistencies in its declarations and has provided no credible proof that it has completely destroyed its weapons stockpiles and production infrastructure.


UNSCOM inspection activities and Coalition military strikes destroyed most of its prohibited ballistic missiles and some Gulf war-era chemical and biological munitions, but Iraq still has a small force of extended-range Scud-variant missiles, chemical precursors, biological seed stock, and thousands of munitions suitable for chemical and biological agents.

Iraq has preserved and in some cases enhanced the infrastructure and expertise necessary for WMD production and has used that capability to maintain a stockpile of WMD and to increase its size and sophistication in some areas.

UN Security Council Resolutions and Provisions for Inspections and Monitoring: Theory and Practice

Resolution Requirement
Reality

Res. 687 (3 April 1991) Requires Iraq to declare, destroy, remove, or render harmless under UN or IAEA supervision and not to use, develop, construct, or acquire all chemical and biological weapons, all ballistic missiles with ranges greater than 150 km, and all nuclear weapons-usable material, including related material, equipment, and facilities. The resolution also formed the Special Commission and authorized the IAEA to carry out immediate on-site inspections of WMD-related facilities based on Iraq's declarations and UNSCOM's designation of any additional locations.
Baghdad refused to declare all parts of each WMD program, submitted several declarations as part of its aggressive efforts to deny and deceive inspectors, and ensured that certain elements of the program would remain concealed. The prohibition against developing delivery platforms with ranges greater than 150 km allowed Baghdad to research and develop shorter-range systems with applications for longer-range systems and did not affect Iraqi efforts to convert full-size aircraft into unmanned aerial vehicles as potential WMD delivery systems with ranges far beyond 150 km.

Res. 707 (15 August 1991) Requires Iraq to allow UN and IAEA inspectors immediate and unrestricted access to any site they wish to inspect. Demands Iraq provide full, final, and complete disclosure of all aspects of its WMD programs; cease immediately any attempt to conceal, move, or destroy WMD-related material or equipment; allow UNSCOM and IAEA teams to use fixed-wing and helicopter flights throughout Iraq; and respond fully, completely, and promptly to any Special Commission questions or requests.
Baghdad in 1996 negotiated with UNSCOM Executive Chairman Ekeus modalities that it used to delay inspections, to restrict to four the number of inspectors allowed into any site Baghdad declared as "sensitive," and to prohibit them altogether from sites regarded as sovereign. These modalities gave Iraq leverage over individual inspections. Iraq eventually allowed larger numbers of inspectors into such sites but only after lengthy negotiations at each site.

Res. 715 (11 October 1991) Requires Iraq to submit to UNSCOM and IAEA long-term monitoring of Iraqi WMD programs; approved detailed plans called for in UNSCRs 687 and 707 for long-term monitoring.
Iraq generally accommodated UN monitors at declared sites but occasionally obstructed access and manipulated monitoring cameras. UNSCOM and IAEA monitoring of Iraq's WMD programs does not have a specified end date under current UN resolutions.

Res. 1051 (27 March 1996) Established the Iraqi export/import monitoring system, requiring UN members to provide IAEA and UNSCOM with information on materials exported to Iraq that may be applicable to WMD production, and requiring Iraq to report imports of all dual-use items.
Iraq is negotiating contracts for procuring—outside of UN controls—dual-use items with WMD applications. The UN lacks the staff needed to conduct thorough inspections of goods at Iraq's borders and to monitor imports inside Iraq.

Res. 1060 (12 June 1996) and Resolutions 1115, 1134, 1137, 1154, 1194, and 1205. Demands that Iraq cooperate with UNSCOM and allow inspection teams immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to facilities for inspection and access to Iraqi officials for interviews. UNSCR 1137 condemns Baghdad's refusal to allow entry to Iraq to UNSCOM officials on the grounds of their nationality and its threats to the safety of UN reconnaissance aircraft.
Baghdad consistently sought to impede and limit UNSCOM's mission in Iraq by blocking access to numerous facilities throughout the inspection process, often sanitizing sites before the arrival of inspectors and routinely attempting to deny inspectors access to requested sites and individuals. At times, Baghdad would promise compliance to avoid consequences, only to renege later.

Res. 1154 (2 March 1998) Demands that Iraq comply with UNSCOM and IAEA inspections and endorses the Secretary General's memorandum of understanding with Iraq, providing for "severest consequences" if Iraq fails to comply.

Res. 1194 (9 September 1998) Condemns Iraq's decision to suspend cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA.

Res. 1205 (5 November 1998) Condemns Iraq's decision to cease cooperation with UNSCOM.
UNSCOM could not exercise its mandate without Iraqi compliance. Baghdad refused to work with UNSCOM and instead negotiated with the Secretary General, whom it believed would be more sympathetic to Iraq's needs.

Res. 1284 (17 December 1999) Established the United Nations Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), replacing UNSCOM; and demanded that Iraq allow UNMOVIC teams immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all aspects of Iraq's WMD program.
Iraq repeatedly has rejected the return of UN arms inspectors and claims that it has satisfied all UN resolutions relevant to disarmament. Compared with UNSCOM, 1284 gives the UNMOVIC chairman less authority, gives the Security Council a greater role in defining key disarmament tasks, and requires that inspectors be full-time UN employees.



Since December 1998, Baghdad has refused to allow UN inspectors into Iraq as required by the Security Council resolutions. Technical monitoring systems installed by the UN at known and suspected WMD and missile facilities in Iraq no longer operate. Baghdad prohibits Security Council-mandated monitoring overflights of Iraqi facilities by UN aircraft and helicopters. Similarly, Iraq has curtailed most IAEA inspections since 1998, allowing the IAEA to visit annually only a very small number of sites to safeguard Iraq's stockpile of uranium oxide.

In the absence of inspectors, Baghdad's already considerable ability to work on prohibited programs without risk of discovery has increased, and there is substantial evidence that Iraq is reconstituting prohibited programs. Baghdad's vigorous concealment efforts have meant that specific information on many aspects of Iraq's WMD programs is yet to be uncovered. Revelations after the Gulf war starkly demonstrate the extensive efforts undertaken by Iraq to deny information.


Limited insight into activities since 1998 clearly show that Baghdad has used the absence of UN inspectors to repair and expand dual-use and dedicated missile-development facilities and to increase its ability to produce WMD.
Nuclear Weapons Program
More than ten years of sanctions and the loss of much of Iraq's physical nuclear infrastructure under IAEA oversight have not diminished Saddam's interest in acquiring or developing nuclear weapons.


Iraq's efforts to procure tens of thousands of proscribed high-strength aluminum tubes are of significant concern. All intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons and that these tubes could be used in a centrifuge enrichment program. Most intelligence specialists assess this to be the intended use, but some believe that these tubes are probably intended for conventional weapons programs.
Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program before the Gulf war that focused on building an implosion-type weapon using highly enriched uranium. Baghdad was attempting a variety of uranium enrichment techniques, the most successful of which were the electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS) and gas centrifuge programs. After its invasion of Kuwait, Iraq initiated a crash program to divert IAEA-safeguarded, highly enriched uranium from its Soviet and French-supplied reactors,but the onset of hostilities ended this effort. Iraqi declarations and the UNSCOM/IAEA inspection process revealed much of Iraq's nuclear weapons efforts, but Baghdad still has not provided complete information on all aspects of its nuclear weapons program.


Iraq has withheld important details relevant to its nuclear program, including procurement logs, technical documents, experimental data, accounting of materials, and foreign assistance.

Here is the rest http://216.109.125.130/search/cache...nie+before+iraq&d=MTtjdDmtM_v1&icp=1&.intl=us
 
Last edited:
Reading that I am reminded that, although Iraq may not actually have had the materials and equipment they were claimed to have had in the intelligence briefs presented by the administration, they sure acted like they did.

They did violate almost all the UN resolutions and restrictions on access and, as inspectors demanded more access to the few remaining uninspected sites, got more and more intransigent and belligerant in their refusals and less and less discreet in suspicious activities and outright violations, such as the enforced delays while inspectors noted trucks moving stuff out of inspection sites and locking SAM radars onto our aircraft.

In essence, they may have been "innocent" of actually having WMD anymore but they did their level best to appear guilty. Which makes it a bit more understandable (if not actually excusable) why, given equivocal evidence, many chose to err (whether by commission or ommission) on the side of the worst case scenario.
 
What?

TBL,
I can't say I agree with your opinion on this issue but mostly I do understand your reasoning, but what is this

"The US can protect itself while not taking on the burdens of a British-style Empire where the sun never sets on our flag. Let's not repeat the brit's mistake."

Where has colonization ever been discussed? Comparing the conflict in Iraq to the British colonization of the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries is absurd. Exactly what parrallels do you think exist?

As I have said before I believe the regime change in Iraq will prove to be a great tactical decision for the US in the War on Terror. Iraq has become the focal point of most of the Islamic terrorists, drawing them from all over the middle east as well as other parts of the world. This makes US civilian citizens safer, and brings the targets to the US military rather than the other way around. And you mentioned living conditions in Iraq, well most of the reports I have seen have actually said that conditions are improved from before the War started. Everything I have read says that the infrastrure is much improved. The media highlights certain problem examples but overall the news coming from Iraq points towards much improvement.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top