A critical revelation re: WMD

[bountyhunter]

Now I know Why This Bothers Me

You wrote:

"We don't have to "prove" in order to "justify" this war that Saddam has WMD."

Now I know why this bothers me so much. Bush stated dozens of times publicly that Iraq had a program that was near completion of a nuclear device. He sent Colin Powell before the UN to say the same thing and he had "proof" which was aluminum tubes and satellite photos of square building structures. Every body saw that, and everybody heard it. The white house spokesperson ridiculed a reporter who asked if there was actual proof by saying: "The only proof you people are going to accept is a mushroom cloud." I heard it and I saw it. I also remember Bush repeatedly said that he had absolute proof, but that he couldn't reveal it because of security reasons. That's all public record.


Now, the war supporters have fallen back to the position that it doesn't matter if anything is found... really? doesn't matter to whom? I think it matters a WHOLE lot!

Where I was raised, I was taught a man is only a good as his word. And Bush said loud and often that Saddam was lying and had a nuclear bomb under development... and Bush used that to justify the urgency of an immediate invasion. I heard it loud and clear, that the inspectors wouldn't find it in time and then Iraq would have nuclear weapons. So, we invaded and now we own the place.

Well, now it's time to put up or shut up: if there is no evidence and it turns out Bush was just blowing smoke, his credibility (and ours) will be vaporware. So, I respectfully disagree with the original posters position that it doesn't matter whether the promised weapons are delivered. In fact, I would say US credibility hangs by it. If not, the Arab states will just say: Saddam was right... it was just an excuse to invade Iraq and set up a puppet government that will pump cheap oil.

 

[OF]

"Kurds with .50 cals"

Sounds nice and tidy, but it wouldn't have solved the problem in Iraq, nor would have it given us any of the associated bonuses. Like weakening the UN, the opportunity to oversee the creation of the new gov't, a shot at basing rights, the begrudging respect of the middle east and PRNK, re-establishing who our friends are in preperation for freedom and democracy moving forward on earth as opposed to stagnating while tyranies grow more powerful.


"Not enough justification"

Just to be clear, we have a frothing animal in Saddam Hussein. A family of animals surrounded by subordinate animals all presiding over one of, if not the, most horrificly disgusting regimes since Adolf. This regime has sponsored acts directly attacking the United States. Before Gulf War I, I would agree that Hussein's overarching desire was to rule the middle east. After Gulf War I, his desire was to hurt the US as badly as he possibly could. This is not just my 'belief', there is evidence out the wazoo. Read his speeches. Put the timeline together. Everything he did since Gulf I is maneuvering in order to position himself to be able to strike the US. He constantly risked his entire regime for that cause. His desire to strike the US ultimately cost him his regime and possibly his life.


"Bush et al. didn't get the word out / chose the wrong justification"

The first WTC bombing was not used for justification previously because Clinton is scum. But be assured that Bush's people know what happened there and it's in the file of reasons for giving the thumbs up to whack this animal.


"we have nukes / they have nukes what's the big deal":

If you realize that what Hussein wanted was to hit us hard then it takes on a little different meaning. There is simply no comparison between the United States and the, now ancient history, "gov't" of Iraq. Do I have a pistol in my holster? Yes. Am I perfect? Not by a long shot. But the rabid murderous animal standing in front of me is reaching for a new-found pistol of his own and for years has been screaming that all he wants is me dead. And he's tried over and over again. he spends all his time plotting to kill me, maneuvering himself into a position where he can finally take a shot. He talks to other people who want me dead. They all sit around and talk about how they'd like to gut my family out on the lawn. He has been gutting his own family for years and everyone knows it. He's shoots his neighbors. He shoots people in his own house. Are he and I equivalent? There is no comparison.

None.


"It's all about oil"

I've heard it all, and I ain't buying it.

 

[Derek Zeanah]

I've heard it all, and I ain't buying it.

So we agree to disagree.

 

[Thumper]

Just to clarify your position, Derek...

Are you:

a.) One of those who believe that we should have again deferred to the UN regarding how to handle the Iraq issue or

b.) Trust in Hussein's benevolence toward the U.S. or

c.) Some other option I must've failed to consider?

 

[OF]

So we agree to disagree.

Looks that way.

 

[Derek Zeanah]

Are you:

a.) One of those who believe that we should have again deferred to the UN regarding how to handle the Iraq issue or

b.) Trust in Hussein's benevolence toward the U.S. or

c.) Some other option I must've failed to consider?

I'm one of those who thinks it's morally reprehensible to initiate force without just cause. In this case, I didn't see any reason to initiate force against Iraq, and I still don't.

I believe that Hussein didn't like us, but that he wasn't going to take any action that would threaten his well-being or power base. I believe that initiating force against him increased the likelihood that he would give chem/bio weapons to terrorists, if he had these substances in any serious quantity (still not proven).

I don't believe the UN was going to do anything either -- they watched hundreds of thousands of civilians die in a genocide in their own back yard and couldn't be bothered to do anything about it -- why would they screw around in the Middle East?

I also don't believe that Hussein is the primary threat against us in the middle east. There's a lot of hate for the US coming from Saudi Arabia, whose monarchs are hated by the people, and who only stay in power because of our support. Egypt is sort of the same, and Lord knows Israel's handling of the palestine/west bank issue is making matters worse with each Muslim death (which is very well publicised in the Middle East, and no, the Israelis aren't saints in the way they deal with their opposition).

If I wanted Hussein gone, I'd suggest that a bullet through the head, followed by a press release that simply states "those who attempt to assassinate American political targets make themselves valid targets for retaliatory assassinations" would have solved the Hussein problem.

If you want to see a situation that's simply screaming for US intervention, where they hate the US, are known to have nuclear weapons, and are actively thumbing their noses at us and issuing threats, look to North Korea. I'd probably get behind that effort, but that's not going to be a casualty-free war that increases support for the incumbant president, either.

 

[TallPine]

Well, we did catch old Abu Whats-is-Name in Bagdad, the one who hijacked the cruise ship in the Med back in '85 and rolled that American guy off the deck in his wheelchair.

Now somewhere back shortly after 09-11-01, I remember Bush saying that any country that harbored terrorists was going to be on our hit list - "you are either with us or against us" etc.

So it looks like Iraq was against us and it cost them big time.

Now ... anybody else want to play rough? No ...? I didn't think so.

 

[Derek Zeanah]

any country that harbored terrorists was going to be on our hit list - "you are either with us or against us" etc

But that's not it. The UK is "harboring terrorists" (or at least has failed to control them over the last few decades). Saudi Arabia is harboring a bunch of mean bastards who are actively encouraging hatred of the US, and whose citizens made up the vast majority of the participants in the 9-11 collisions.

No plans to go after either of them, though. And no requests that Iraq expel "Abu Whats-is-Name" from Baghdad either -- supposedly, if Saddam had stepped down from power and surrendered, we would have left Iraq alone and not bothered with any terrorists in Bagdhad. Supposedly, this was about "a cocked gun being pointed at the head of the united states" (paraphrased from an earlier post) in the form of nuke/chem/bio weapons that were about to be used against us.

Do what you want to justify these actions now that it's over, but be honest enough to admit that the reasons we cited for going in there look highly suspect. You might agree with the action enough to not care about appearances, but others certainly do care.

 

[Thumper]

Regardless, the rest of the world is starting to see us this way -- the rogue nation that acts in its own self-interest regardless of the norms of international law or anything else that seems contrary to our desired course of action.

Ah...so we should cease to act in our "own self-interest" and kowtow to world opinion? Do you honestly think that letting others decide your actions is in your own best interest?

My own personal fear is that we haven't learned from the last 5 decades, and the results of this conflict in the long run will be no better than financing and training Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were, even though those looked like good bets a few decades ago. Unintended consequences in effect.

Good Lord...you don't mean they might attack us here!?

For those of you basking in the calm SINCE 9/11/2001, we are already fighting here. Pulling your punches for fear of what the other guy will do if you hurt him is a GREAT way to lose a fight.

We ARE in a fight...please try to remember.

So...to your average militant fundamentalist, would you rather appear:

Strong and determined

or

Weak and timid?

Wonder how many Syrian fighters decided to take their AKs and go home when they realized the fight was for real?

Our position is inarguably stronger today than it was two months ago...whether you like it or not, folks listen to the big guy.

 

[Gordon Fink]

Posted by GRD:

“It’s all about oilâ€

I’ve heard it all, and I ain’t buying it.

But you will be, soon enough. Oil money and U.S. taxpayer dollars will fund the reconstruction of Iraq.

~G. Fink

 

[OF]

You know, I'm starting to think we just might find enough right in the walls of some of those palaces!

U.S. taxpayer dollars will fund the reconstruction of Iraq

And it'll be some of the best money we've spent. I can think of few things we can get for our money that will be more worth the asking price than a former-toruture-chamber turned wealthy, capitalist secular democracy right smack dab in the middle of the big sand box from hell.

- Gabe

 

[edamon]

If I recall, the "cease-fire" from the gulf war was based on saddam disarming and destroying all his wmd.

failure to comply over the last 12 years nulls the cease-fire, so technically, we were still at war anyhow.

-d

 

[Monkeyleg]

GW has denounced regimes that: a) sponsor terrorism; b) possess weapons of mass destruction in violation of existing treaties or international agreements; c) commit genocide upon their own people; d) invade other countries.

Iran meets a couple of criteria, as does North Korea, Syria, Libya, to name just a few.

But Iraq met all the criteria. If you're going to go after someone, go after someone who's broken all the rules.

And, as much as I distrust any politician, I do not believe that Bush did this for political reasons. Come the 2004 elections, this war will be an afterthought; the economy will be front and center, and the war will have contributed to the economy's weakness. In other words, Bush has made his own re-election that much more difficult by going to war.

With Clinton, you had to evaluate his decisions by looking around (usually in his pockets or his shorts) to figure out his motives. With Bush, agree with him or not, he's made his motives very clear with regard to Iraq.

 

[Drjones]

if he had these substances in any serious quantity

That's the problem I see over and over with anti-war types:

NO quantity is ever "serious."

We could find literally hundreds of thousands of gallons of chem/bio weapons stockpiled INSIDE A FACTORY capable of producing MILLIONS of gallons, and you'd write it off as "insufficient quantities."



:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

 

[Gordon Fink]

And it’ll be some of the best money we’ve spent. I can think of few things we can get for our money that will be more worth the asking price.…

I’m sure the money would be better spent rebuilding the U.S. Spending the money on Iraq will further enrich a few well-placed Americans and possibly a few wealthy Iraqis. The common Iraqi may also get a few crumbs, but the common American taxpayer will get only the bill.

Nevertheless, we are now honor-bound to act as the dutiful conqueror. We must rebuild Iraq and ensure that a stable, friendly government is installed, though the Iraqi people will come to hate us for this and slowly but steadily kill members of our occupation force.

~G. Fink

 

[Derek Zeanah]

We could find literally hundreds of thousands of gallons of chem/bio weapons stockpiled INSIDE A FACTORY capable of producing MILLIONS of gallons, and you'd write it off as "insufficient quantities."

Dude, we started a friggin war on the premise that if we didn't act NOW, then we'd find we'd waited too long and Saddam would have attacked us with the huge quantities that our leaders swore to us existed. Hell, they had actual, accurate, 100% reliable proof that these evil nasty weapons existed, and the intelligence was so good that they knew exactly where significant qualtities were stored/being manufactured/whatever.

Of course, the UN inspectors couldn't be guided to them, and our allies couldn't be shown any evidence even in confidence, and documents that were released did nothing but embarrass the administration, and now that Iraq's rolled over we can't find anything that represents a significant threat to anyone, other than the "secret, underground, hidden nuke research facility" you mentioned in another thread which had already been inventoried and signed off on by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

I don't doubt that we're going to find something in Iraq that's damning, even if it's 3 barrels of decade-old VX that's no longer active. There's gotta be something there, because that regime doesn't seem to be that good about cleaning up after themselves.

All that aside, the evidence we've been shown so far strongly suggests that we've all been lied to about why we entered this war. You can argue that it was the "right" thing to do from a dozen different angles, but you're missing the point that none of those (possibly very legitimate) reasons were cited as our justification for entering the war. The justification was (as someone else so aptly put it) that Saddam was pointing a cocked gun at the collective head of the United States, and the immediate threat he posed was enough reason to eliminate him.

Now not only can we not find a gun, we can't find any ammunition. And no-one on the "conservative" side of the fence sees anything wrong with this situation.

Having said that, a swimming pool full of chemical agent (whether we're talking blister or nerve agent -- doesn't matter) certainly qualifies as a damning amount, especially if it were being actively produced. But it looks to me that people who supported the war effort (either because they believed the Bush administration or because they were happy to see Saddam get what he deserved) seem to be grasping at anything to justify it.

 

[tyme]

Now not only can we not find a gun, we can't find any ammunition. And no-one on the "conservative" side of the fence sees anything wrong with this situation.

Clever rhetorical trick, but that means nothing. In this case, real-life proscribed weapons would be a "smoking gun" in the expression. There is no equivalent to "ammunition" in the expression, so using that analogy, while it appeals to the "why oh why did we have to go to war" crowd, is useless as a rational argument.

Dude, we started a friggin war on the premise that if we didn't act NOW, then we'd find we'd waited too long and Saddam would have attacked us with the huge quantities that our leaders swore to us existed.
...
The justification was (as someone else so aptly put it) that Saddam was pointing a cocked gun at the collective head of the United States, and the immediate threat he posed was enough reason to eliminate him.

I disagree. The entire point was that we could not afford to wait until there was a known, large amount of WoMD or other proscribed weapons that would in essence be a "cocked gun" (using that phrase is misleading in any situation when referring to military capability) pointed at the U.S., Israel, or at Iraq's neighbors. Saddam had many chances to try to assure us that this threat was not building. Saddam failed. Saddam, if he's alive, is going to have a quite difficult time returning to power somewhere, and word is at least one of his "children" is dead.

As to the first portion of the quotation, "NOW" is not really accurate. It was not so much a matter of "NOW or else..." but "NOW or when?"

 

[Derek Zeanah]

I disagree. The entire point was that we could not afford to wait until there was a known, large amount of WoMD or other proscribed weapons that would in essence be a "cocked gun"

The problem with that line of thinking in matters like international relations is that it can be used to justify anything with a little bit of fore-thought.

"That guy over there isn't our friend, and we're afraid that if we sit around, then eventually he may design weapons that can be used against us, decide that he's going to risk everything to attack us, and make concrete plans to do so. To alleviate that risk, we're going to 'proactively defend ourselves' against him by attacking him now."

That's the same as another posted above (or in the other thread) used to justify the assassination of a pedophile who lives next door -- the risk he poses to my family is too much, so I'm justified in initiating the use of lethal force. Not "I'm going to build a big wall," or "I'm going to install security cameras," or "I'm going to get other people in my neighborhood on-board and hire an investigator to keep his eye on the guy," or "I'm going to ask the cops to drive by a few times a night," or "I'm going to watch my kids closely." Nope, the reaction was "I'm gonna kill that MoFo, law be damned, because the risks as I evaluate them are too great to let him live."

(Not my metaphor, but seems applicable.)

Your argument boils down to "My country is justified in attacking any nation that our current leaders label as a threat, and no proof will be required from my leaders." Isn't it? Is that OK to you? Would it be OK if for instance the USSR was making the claim, unstead of US? We know that we're always the good guys, and that the US can do no wrong; are you going to somehow prevent other nations from taking such unilateral actions? Or would you argue that we'd be obligated to stomp our foot down on another nation if they tried something comparable, without UN approval, without proof, and potentially against our interests?

Slippery slope arguments are weak, but we're talking about crossing a line here. In general, it's been considered justifiable to use force against another nation in retaliation to that nation's use of force; that means you can strike back, or you can go out of your way to defend an ally. Been like that forever.

Previously, if you want the legitimacy to step into a country that's not being a bad neighbor (say to stop the genocide going on in the Balkans, which they labelled an internal "civil war") then you went to the international community and made a case for stepping in. The legitimacy of interfering on another nation's internal affairs is a little questionable, but preventing a few hundred thousand more civilian deaths was enough of a motivation to go in anyway.

Now, your argument is that it's ok for a nation (in our case the US) to attack another based solely on its desire to do so. There's no compelling proof that Saddam Hussein:

• Had large stockpiles of WMD's
• Had a delivery method figured out for deploying them in the US
• Was planning on such an action

We've got a bunch of assertions that this was the case, but as yet no proof. Yeah, Bush and crew stated that they knew with 100% certainty that WMD's were in place in Iraq, were being actively developed and manufactured, and our intelligence was so good that we even knew the location of large qualtities of it.

Now, we had UN inspections going on at the time, and the inspectors asked for any help in finding these substances that the Bush administration was willing to give. Instead of picking up a team of inspectors on a Pave Low and flying to the site at 150 mph to remove the possibility of the evil stuff being moved, the administration said no help could be given, as doing so would risk our intelligence assets in the area. When asked by allies to share some of this intelligence privately, we still refused to do so.

OK, a lot of people thought the assertion was enough, and that we'd see the proof once Saddam was out of power. Well, we're there now, and there's a lot of hype any time something might test positive as a prohibited substance, but nothing concrete yet.

I'm asserting a couple of things in these arguments:

1. I don't believe that the evidence we claimed we had of Saddam's WMD arsenal existed. If the administration's information on WMD locations and such actually existed, they'd go ahead and take something to show the world they they weren't making it all up. The knew the location of a dozen mobile labs, tracked via satellite? Great. Show us one. Nukes being researched secretly? Cool -- that's got to be hard to dismantle and move quickly. Show it to us. If the Bush administration can't show us that this stuff existed, and do so quickly, then that's suggestive that the arguments and super-secret intelligence used to justify the action was a bunch of hooey. I don't like going to war over false premises.
2. We acted in a way that can't be justified under international law. Nations are supposed to behave in civilized ways. You don't invade another country simply because you don't like them. You certainly don't attack another neighbor because doing so lessens some potential future risk from that nation. If something was going to be done in Iraq, IMHO we should have waited for the UN inspectors to find the stuff that proved Saddam was no longer in compliance with the terms of his surrender, and then acted. We could have helped them find this stuff in less than an hour if we'd wanted to (assuming intelligence claims weren't BS), but we didn't see the need. That seems to set an awful precident -- international law isn't as important as the power we weild, which allows us to do whatever we want. I don't like where that's heading, as it sounds awfully close to "individual rights don't matter because we have the power to take them away..."

If my assertions are correct, then we're looking at a situation where the US Government lied to us and to the rest of the world in order to justify an illegal act against another nation.

Yeah, Saddam was an evil guy who deserved to be put in the company of Satan, the sooner the better. That this is so doesn't address the points I'm trying to make at all.

 

[tyme]

Yeah, that's more or less the argument. In considering it, though, you have to consider that "the risk is too great" doesn't just come from various assertions such as "Bush wanted oil" or because "Saddam tried to kill Bush Sr."

Sadly, this is what the world has become. It's looking more and more like we will not (and I would say should not and cannot afford to) simply sit around while Iran builds nukes, North Korea builds more nukes, and Pakistan and India get ready to nuke each other every few years. This is not a matter of simply not wanting other countries to have nukes or other WoMD. That alone does not represent a security threat of the proportions necessary to justify preemptive action. The threat comes from certain types of weapons in certain environments comprised of a less-than-responsible undemocratic governments with recent histories of ethic- or religion-based conflicts, and a variety of other lesser factors. Certainly the fact that the ex-Baath ruling party of Iraq considered violence, specifically ethnic-based violence, a cleansing of the soul, did not help tilt the balance in their favor. I don't simply dole out such aspersions to try to make an emotional case for the war on Iraq. This was simply an evil regime, and it ought to have been expelled long before it was. If we had to use a bunch of tricky legal and political manuevering to put the ball in Saddam's court and then declare a foul, so be it.

Each such dangerous country presents a new situation and must be dealt with in a different way. Do you see us gearing up to go into Syria? Iran? North Korea? No. Even beyond the criteria I mentioned above, of course we have to recognize the consequences. When the consequences include liberating the Iraqi people and do not include getting San Francisco, LA, or whatever other cities nuked, as they might if the topic of consideration were North Korea, those consequences are acceptable, if not desirable, and we ought to take action given sufficient support from the American people.

1. I think you overestimate our intelligence capabilities if you think we can track an 18-wheeler around a country. I don't like going to war over false premises either, and I hope we find some evidence of WoMD, but I have to say I don't consider it beyond the realm of possibility that Saddam would have exported his weapons to, say, Syria, knowing they'd be destroyed if he left them around for us to find. I'm not sure at what point I could say "darn, I've been misled. Bush lied and went to war to free Iraq from a terrible regime that did all sorts of terrible things nationally and internationally."

2. UN SC Res. 1441. *giggle*. I wonder if that'll become something of an historical argument-killer much like Hitler is today. It certainly has the makings of a U.S. v Miller.

 

[Drjones]

Ok, WHO the HECK said anything here about assasinating the "pedophile"?

All I remember that initial post asking was "how long do you wait until you do something."

Does SOMETHING to you mean "kill"?

Interesting dictionary you've got there...

You could call the cops, make a media circus out of it, etc.

You are building up a huge straw-man based on that example.

 

[Derek Zeanah]

Do you wait for him to act or take care of the situation before something terrible happens? This might be a hard line vigilanteism but you have kept your family safe.

Does SOMETHING to you mean "kill"?

Interesting dictionary you've got there...

My apologies mr Jones. I assumed the tone of the post, plus invocation of the term vigilante suggested more than causing a media circus.

Naturally, your interpretation is a more accurate rephrasing of the original poster's meaning.

Now, do you disagree with the rest of the post as well, including my 2 assertions? Or did that comment negate the rest of my argument?

 

[Sergeant Bob]

Previously, if you want the legitimacy to step into a country that's not being a bad neighbor (say to stop the genocide going on in the Balkans, which they labelled an internal "civil war") then you went to the international community and made a case for stepping in. The legitimacy of interfering on another nation's internal affairs is a little questionable, but preventing a few hundred thousand more civilian deaths was enough of a motivation to go in anyway.

I heard Clinton talk alot about "genocide and ethnic cleansing" by the Serbs (our allies in WWII) against the "Ethnic Albanians" but never saw any real proof. Oh, I think they found a couple thousand bodies (mass graves?), although it was unclear who killed them or when. That's bad, but hardly genocide, and the refugees didn't start leaving the county till we started bombing the snot out of them and destroying their infrstructure. So did we go to war to prevent what might happen (as in a few hundred thousand more deaths than the few thousand that already happened) in what many considered a civil war? He talked alot about World War I starting there (like it was bound to happen again).

Saddam reportedly killed, tortured, jailed, gassed, maimed, raped hundreds of thousands of people in his own country. That alone is reason enough to go in. As for WMD's, it's kind of early to tell, we're just finishing a war there. It's a pretty big place and he had lots of time to hide things. The hiding spots probably won't be as easy to spot as the Baby Milk Plants . The troops have better things to do right now than just look for WMD's right now. As for giving Top Secret intelligence information to UN Inspectors, I trust Hans Blix no more than I would Scott Ritter.

Don't really care what the "International Community" thinks. Any that were worth a hoot were already with us. The rest are just a bunch of tinpots pushing their own agenda's which happen to be against the U.S. on anything that is proposed by a non Socialist President.