WMD Mega-Thread

[pax]

If he had 'em, why didn't he use them against us when we invaded?

If he didn't have 'em, why didn't he cooperate with the UN inspections in the first place, so we wouldn't invade?



No, I don't have a point, or an argument, or a dog in this fight. Nothing adds up -- neither side of this discussion makes any sense at all to me.

pax

Propaganda does not deceive people; it merely helps them to deceive themselves. -- Eric Hoffer

 

[WonderNine]

Uh...... isn't that why we are over there???! Weren't they supposed to be a threat to US security?

No, we needed to find an excuse to finish the Gulf War so that we could get our soldiers out of Saudi Arabia. At any rate, I'm glad it's over and would support it again. Saddam either sold his WOMD to try and make us look like ijits, has them in someplace like Syria, or took them someplace else if he's still alive.

I would think if there were any in Iraq, they would have found them by now, but who knows they could be underground somewhere. And remember all the tunnels they found in his presidential palaces that led to the Tigris river. In other words, there's so many things he could of done with the WoMD that it'll be a miracle if we ever find any solid proof.

Basically, who gives a $h1T3 as long as they aren't in the hands of Al-Qaeda (where they probably are).

 

[Tom B]

I voted for Bush and have supported the republican party with my money and votes for over 30 years. The dems are not a viable option IMO. But I will not participate in a "he can do not wrong because he is a republican" or "lesser of two evils" mindset. I was against this war from the onset but the majority of Americans were not. So they got their wish. Were the intentions of the majority honorable and moral? You decide. Would the government plant evidence of WMD? I really like the response alluding that it is an insult to even think such a thing! Sure they would to get off the hot seat look at "the Gulf of Tonkin incident" in the 60s. "Why don't we invade N. Korea or Vietnam"? Lets be honest. Because a bigger dog lives on that street! "Bush is high in the polls". Yes he is but LBJ tried to govern by polls and it didn't work so does Bush think he will be the exception? Klinton got better results with the poll watching so maybe so. Don't forget the other poll 10 dead in last 15 days. And my favorite "America! Love it or leave it!" Which actually means If you don't like my favorite politicians you should leave OR I am out of points to argue so I will take my ball and go home!

 

[Art Eatman]

faustulus, I'm in no hurry from the standpoint of the politics. It's a separate issue from the danger. My gripe is with the idea that because they have not already been found, they never existed.

At the minimum, with Hussein gone, we don't have to worry any longer about his misuse of the oil income to Iraq to buy WMD technology instead of food.

If whatever WMD he had has been dispersed to places like Syria (or wherever; I don't pretend to know), our actions in Iraq should give pause to the idea of the use of WMD.

We're dealing with leadership cadres who only respect the mix of superior power and the will to use it. From that standpoint the Iraqi Wargame has been successful and justified. The sad part of the whole deal is that the leadership cadres care not one iota about the overall well-being of the citizens. The Iraqis may wind up being more free, long term, but the immediate effect is that of all wars: The citizens are the short-term losers.

Art

 

[CMichael]

If he had 'em, why didn't he use them against us when we invaded?

The US troops were protected against chemical weapons. So other than perhaps slowing them down a bit what would it have accomplished if he did use them?

 

[longeyes]

the eternal WHY

Because Iraq is the heart of the Islamic world and a good place to begin the democratization/secularization/neutralization of radical Islam.

Because a show of serious force was needed to convince radical militants we aren't a paper tiger.

Because now and then we need to see if our "stuff" works and how well.

Because it's better to engage in a couple of limited war theaters than go for The Big One.

In a gunfight don't look at their mouths, look at their hands.

 

[Lord Grey Boots]

If he had 'em, why didn't he use them against us when we invaded?

Easy. Its fairly time consuming and finicky business to transport and deploy such weapons. The primary deployment method would have been massed 125mm/155mm artillery.

Since having WMD being used on allied troops would have been a bad thing, the allied plan did several things to prevent it:
Special forces behind lines to mess with the Senior Iraqi commanders,
Bribes,
Negotiation,
Heavy aerial bombardment on Iraqi artillery emplacements everywhere.
High disruption of Iraqi communications.
An extremely fast ground advance, that made heavy use of feints, speed and maneuver.

This meant that the Iraqi's simply didn't have the time and coordination to set up a place where they could use them. The Allied forces smashed any attempts to gather artillery in one spot.

The Iraqi military never understood the US total force concept, with a battle being done in 3 dimensions, over a wide and deep area, all at once. They were still thinking of slow moving, well defined, ground advances such as they saw when fighting Iran.

 

[DonQatU]

Wow! I can't and wouldn't add any windage or elevation to Tom B's post above. He is in the X-ring dead center!

Don

 

[DonQatU]

The primary deployment method would have been massed 125mm/155mm artillery.

Lord Grey Boots, obviously you know more about Iraqi artillery than I do! I never knew they had 125mm/155mm artillery!

Must have hidden/transferred those with their WMDs!

Don

 

[Hkmp5sd]

One thing I find amusing about this entire topic is the claim that the Bush administration either over exaggerated or completely made up the infomation claiming Iraq had WMD. Now the dumocrats want to hold hearing into the subject.

Does anyone think that if they DID NOT have evidence of WMD and they decided to fake the reports to justify the war, they would not also plant some nice fake evidence in Iraq so they could say, "see, told you so!"?

You can bet that if they had found all kinds of WMD during the early days, everyone would claim it had been planted. They couldn't win either way. After all, they supposedly faked the Jessica Lynch rescue.

 

[DaveB]

One thing I find amusing about this entire topic...

I'm sure, then, that you'll really get a laugh out of the impeachment trial.

db

 

[DonQatU]

Change of Buzz Words

Has anybody else noted how the administration has changed the tune of their song from "finding WMDs" to "finding WMD PROGRAMS"???!!

Any significance to this?

Don

 

[DonQatU]

False Yellow Cake :-(

Remember this? Yellow cake from Nigeria? Don

http://famulus.msnbc.com/FamulusIntl/reuters06-12-120451.asp?reg=MIDEAST

 

[SkunkApe]

Does anyone think that if they DID NOT have evidence of WMD and they decided to fake the reports to justify the war, they would not also plant some nice fake evidence in Iraq so they could say, "see, told you so!"?

- Hkmp5sd

I read an article a while back (which a can't find now, unfortunately) that addressed this question. To the best of my recollection, the three main things that would deter the "planting" of WMDs, according to this article, were:

1) A large volume of chemical weapons would be required to be significantly effective. (Remember, Bush was talking 500 tons.)

2) Biological weapons would require smaller amounts, but are traceable somehow. DNA perhaps? I forget the exact method, but the author claimed the place of origin could be determined.

3) Too much politcal risk.


My take is this:

1) I disagree. If Bush and Powell held up one rusty bucket from 1983 marked "chemical weapons", most folks on this site would go wild at seeing the "proof".

2) Can't comment, due to lack of technical knowledge in this area. Maybe someone else can?

3) Probably true. The U.S. could SAY whatever it wants, and as long as there is the slightest possibility of a hint of truth in it, they can pull it off. Just exaggerated a bit, you know? But if they PHYSICALLY plant "evidence" and get caught, even some of you guys might be a little angry.

Number three is the most likely deterent, in my not-so-highly-respected opinion.

SkunkApe a.k.a Sock Puppet

 

[Shalako]

[voice from the crowd]
I'm not so sure that if the U.S. did find some WMDs that they would even tell us. How many times has our government obscured information from the public to avoid international incidents? If someone they did not want connected was somehow implicated, or perhaps the find was so nefarious they did not want to scare the sheeple, or perhaps the find would be better used to leverage one of our so-called 'allies'. There are many situations in that it would be of greater benefit to withhold the find than to exhonerate the Bush administration. And I'm no state department guru, imagine what really goes on behind closed doors...
[/voice from the crowd]

 

[DonQatU]

If Bush and Powell held up one rusty bucket from 1983 marked "chemical weapons", most folks on this site would go wild at seeing the "proof".

I hate to disagree with my favorite "sock puppet", SkunkApe, BUT .... that rusty bucket could have a sinister "dual-purpose"!


The Iraqis might claim it was used as a chamber pot when their sewage and running water were knocked out. But any fool could see that it was an "inefficient design" for a honey pot. That rusty bucket was more than likely a fermentation tank for bio-weapons.



Don

 

[Hkmp5sd]

SkunkApe,

Good point, but it seems even dumber to base the invasion on their possession of WMD when you know you are not going to find any after you invade. They had to know that the "world" would demand proof once the war was over.

 

[SkunkApe]

The world may be demanding proof, but most of the United States citizenry isn't, and they're the ones who can re-elect Bush. Heck, most Americans are just glad we blasted ANY Arabs. 9/11 and all, you know.


-The sock puppet formerly known as SkunkApe

P.S.

Shalako, you have me thinking. Thats at least one full level of deceit and treachery past what I would think of. No wonder I'm not a politician.

But don't worry too much about the "sheeple". We just tell them "Hussein was about to kill you, but we got him first" and they all baa in unison and go contentedly back to their barn.

 

[faustulus]

Art,

I don't think we were really worried that Iraq would directly use the weapons, and I know we didn't give a hoot about the people. I thought we were worried about terrorists getting the WMD. Although I understand your politcial distinction I still think it is a dangerous position if we believe he had weapons.

longeyes,

Because Iraq is the heart of the Islamic world and a good place to begin the democratization/secularization/neutralization of radical Islam.

I don't think you can back this up. Saudi Arabia, maybe, Iran maybe but not Iraq.

Because a show of serious force was needed to convince radical militants we aren't a paper tiger.

After all this tactic has worked so well for the Israelis.

Because it's better to engage in a couple of limited war theaters than go for The Big One.

Who exactly would we be fighting in this big war?

Skunkape,

Americans are just glad we blasted ANY Arabs. 9/11 and all, you know

Unfortunatly I think you are dead on.

 

[SkunkApe]

Hey faustulus, be careful or you'll be MY sock puppet. Not that its necessarily a bad thing; I'm still unclear on that.

 

[Destructo6]

"Bush is high in the polls". Yes he is but LBJ tried to govern by polls and it didn't work so does Bush think he will be the exception?

The LBJ-Bush analogy is nonsense. Totally different circumstances.

LBJ was elected by a landslide in 1964 and enjoyed Democratic party control of both houses by a respectable gap. He had lots of options, but he chose war. Why? read Longevall's book for one scholar's ideas. Trying to prevent Vietnam from diverting attention from LBJ's Great Society factored high, which is bizarre in hindsight.

Sure they would to get off the hot seat look at "the Gulf of Tonkin incident" in the 60s.

You're not comparing the Gulf of Tonkin Incident with 9-11 are you?

 

[longeyes]

Faustulus,

Iraq is a beachhead, a beginning. What happens to Saudi Arabia remains to be seen. The theory was that Iraq, as the most secular, arguably, of Moslem nations, with many middle-class citizens, had the potential to become the egnine for social and religious transformation and evolution in the region. Whether this works out we will have to see.

How much force we show will depend on how vexatious the militants become. So far we have operated with considerable restraint. There is a lot more force that can be applied--if the situation should call for it.

Who exactly would be fighting in this "big war?" Whoever has become a threat to our national security.

 

[Art Eatman]

Well, pretending to be a strategist and able to mind-read on the Administration:

We sure wouldn't want to try to be directly in control of Saudi Arabia, on account of the numbers of the Wahabis.

The majority of the Iraqi population, more secular, would be easier to sway into some accord for major U.S. bases--given that we got Saddam off their backs. Another six months to a year, and their economy might well be headed back where it was before their war with Iran. There is a lot of western Iraq that isn't citified, nor is it agricultural land. Already very sparsely populated, it would work for U.S. forward bases and let us get out of other, less politically hospitable or less politically important places.

As far as why we've done what we've done, I'd say that there is a lot more national interest in the mid-east than in the Balkans. The best reason for our involvement in the Balkans is that the oil companies want the pipeline routes into central Yurrop--which doesn't do much for the U.S. itsownself. But, ol' Wag the Dog needed campaign funds, and the oil companies probably obliged...

Anybody with a car and computer better be thankful for the awl bidness folks, whether or not you like them. The material quality of our lives depends on what happens in the mid-east--and if that doesn't make it national interest, wotinell does? It has been said that governments don't have friends; only interests. I would add that governments rarely have been noted for morality, either. Interests = survival = re-election. (Or am I too cynical?)

I reiterate that I think the Bushies' focus on WMDs was a mistake, as I think a lot of the comments above have bought into a specious political idea. There were plenty of other good and valid reasons to have gone into Iraq, as have also been mentioned here. Those focussed on the WMD issue seem largely to have ignored the genocide, etc., which I note seemed more important as to Serbia--which had much less evidence of that genocide.

All that said, let nobody believe I am all Pollyanna-ish with optimism about the future in the mid-east...

Art

 

[DonQatU]

Here's another one!

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/030408/140/dx97g.html

Don

 

[faustulus]

SkunkApe,
I agree the entire 'sock, puppet,' paridigm is confusing.

longeyes,

Iraq is a beachhead, a beginning. What happens to Saudi Arabia remains to be seen. The theory was that Iraq, as the most secular, arguably, of Moslem nations, with many middle-class citizens, had the potential to become the egnine for social and religious transformation and evolution in the region. Whether this works out we will have to see.

Turkey has many of the features you bring out in Iraq, but there has not been a spread of secularism throughout the region. The theory is flawed in the same manner the 'domino principle' was flawed back during the cold war. It makes assumptions that counteract history and are based on western thought processes. Iraq is secluar, but not how we think of secular. We tend to think our way is the right one and everyone shares our principles and ideals. We are wrong.

How much force we show will depend on how vexatious the militants become. So far we have operated with considerable restraint. There is a lot more force that can be applied--if the situation should call for it.

The Israelis show of force has worked so well these last few years. I think you are underestimating the Iraqis. Again the World does not share Western ideals. In America life has become more important than freedom and belief, it wasn't always so and still isn't in some parts of the world. What kind of force will sway a man who would strap a bomb to his body just to kill others?

Who exactly would be fighting in this "big war?" Whoever has become a threat to our national security.

What if our enemy was a terrorist network with no homeland and no cities? Did you ever wonder why the Chinese couldn't defeat the Mongols?

Art,
So are you saying this move was about oil or the future of oil?