No WMDs? Is that true? (long) (1285 hits)
Category: NewsRating: -0.09 on 64 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by brianthetruthspeaker (View user info) at 2005-03-09 14:24:26 EST
Everyone knows there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) in Iraq when Bush decided to invade in 2003. If there were any doubts about that, surely they were laid to rest by the Duelfer Report, the official findings of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) headed by Charles Duelfer, Special Advisor to the Director of Central Intelligence.
Take your pick of excerpts from Duelfer report.
On nuclear weapons: Saddam Hussein [sic] ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program.
On chemical weapons: ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991.
On biological weapons (BW):ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specific work for military purposes.
Slam-dunk, right? Bush lied.
(Not so fast.) First, the ISG did find WMD. In fact, it found at least 53 of them.
Beginning in May 2004, ISG recovered a series of chemical weapons from Coalition military units and other sources. A total of 53 munitions have been recovered.
Why haven't you heard that?
(Possibly because that information was buried on page 97 of Annex F of Volume 3 of the Duelfer Report.)
Even if the number of WMD found were short of the large stockpiles threshold demanded by invasion critics, what about the ability to produce and use WMD in a short amount of time? Here, the Duelfer Report is explicit.
[Saddam Hussein] wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted.
We have clear evidence of his intent to resume WMD production as soon as sanctions were lifted
Saddam did express his intent to retain the intellectual capital developed during the Iraqi Nuclear Program.
Iraq took steps to conceal key elements of its program and to preserve what it could of the professional capabilities of its nuclear scientific community.
ISG found a limited number of post-1995 activities that would have aided the reconstitution of the nuclear weapons program once sanctions were lifted.
Saddam never abandoned his intentions to resume a CW effort when sanctions were lifted and conditions were judged favorable.
Iraq's historical ability to implement simple solutions to weaponization challenges allowed Iraq to retain the capability to weaponize CW agent when the need arose.
Iraq Could Maintain CW Competence with Relative Ease
ISG judges that Iraq's actions between 1991 and 1996 demonstrate that the state intended to preserve its BW capability and return to a steady, methodical progress toward a mature BW program when and if the opportunity arose.
Depending on its scale, Iraq could have re-established an elementary BW program within a few weeks to a few months of a decision to do so...
As even the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) declared in 1999,
Iraq possesses an industrial capability and knowledge base, through which biological warfare agents could be produced quickly and in volume.
When is the best time to invade a hostile country, a few months before, or a few months after that country has developed usable biological weapons?
But let us get to the issue of making logical conclusions based on evidence. What does it mean if the ISG did not find WMD?
If they found none (well, only small stockpiles of old chemical bombs), does that mean the WMD were destroyed years ago?
That is exactly what Duelfer judges, at least in the executive summary sections. But is that the only hypothesis, or even the most probable hypothesis?
Here is another hypothesis: Iraq's WMD were hidden and/or moved out of Iraq before our invasion in March 2003.
It was no secret that the U.S. and the rest of the world really wanted to find those WMD.
For over a decade the UN passed 16 resolutions to get at them and sent inspectors to look for them.
The United States built up an armed force of about 150,000 surrounding Iraq to support those inspectors. Our Secretary of State testified in public on what we knew about Iraq's WMD and concealment methods. Even at the end, President Bush gave Saddam 48 hours notice before invading.
Is it any surprise that no WMD were found in the usual places like munitions depots? Eliot Ness also had a problem finding anything illegal in Al Capone's hotel room. Could it be that neither Al Capone nor Saddam Hussein was as dumb as a post?
According to David Kay, Charles Duelfer's predecessor,
(Even the bulkiest materials we are searching for, in the quantities we would expect to find, can be concealed in spaces not much larger than a two-car garage.)
(Iraq is about the size of California. Let me do some math for you. The ratio of the area of Iraq to the area of a two-car garage is about 5 billion to one. The ratio of the volume of a haystack to the volume of a small sewing needle is about 5 million to one. That is, finding WMD in Iraq is 1000 times more difficult than finding a needle in a haystack. And that only includes the surface of Iraq.)
Would Saddam do such a thing as hide weapons? Yes, absolutely. The U.S. Coalition found dozens of military fighter aircraft buried in the desert. You can see the pictures yourself. Some WMD related materials were buried in scientist's back yards. Saddam had friends in Syria. Saddam hid himself in a hole on a farm. Most of his command and control network was underground.
Other excerpts from the Duelfer Report (emphasis added):
Moreover, certain defined questions remain unanswered. For example, we cannot express a firm view on the possibility that WMD elements were relocated out of Iraq prior to the war likewise, there remains some uncertainty concerning reports of mobile BW capabilities."
ISG technical experts fully evaluated less than one quarter of one percent of the over 10,000 weapons caches throughout Iraq, and visited fewer than ten ammunition depots identified prior to OIF as suspect CW sites.
The most interesting discovery has been a 152mm binary Sarin artillery projectile containing a 40 percent concentration of Sarin, which insurgents attempted to use as an Improvised Explosive Device (IED). The existence of this binary weapon not only raises questions about the number of viable chemical weapons remaining in Iraq and raises the possibility that a larger number of binary, long-lasting chemical weapons still exist.
According to David Kay,
Some WMD personnel crossed borders in the pre/trans conflict period and may have taken evidence and even weapons-related materials with them.
Both David Kay and Charles Duelfer noted that Iraq continued to conceal its WMD activities, and suspected sites were often cleaned or looted. Per the Kay report,
We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002.
There are two viable hypotheses: (1) Iraq destroyed its WMD, and (2) Iraq hid its WMD or transported them to other countries, before the March 2003 invasion. The ISG simply did not find enough evidence to falsify either hypothesis, or even to favor one hypothesis over the other. Note the language of Duelfer's Executive Summary:
ISG judges ISG found no direct evidence
one can only guess why Duelfer chose to judge in favor of the destroyed WMD hypothesis. The simplest answer is that the ISG wanted to avoid the embarrassment of simply stating we do not know what happened to them, after having spent significant time and effort looking for WMD. In fact, even the 53 WMD that were found, were found by Coalition forces, not the ISG itself.
Let me give an alternative executive summary of the ISG's findings that could have been written from the same set of facts.
Iraq was known to have had large WMD stockpiles at least until 1991. In the following 12 years, Iraq refused to destroy, or adequately account for the destruction of, all those WMD as required by multiple UN resolutions.
After the U.S. led Coalition invaded Iraq in March 2003, the ISG searched a tiny fraction of Iraq and found 53 chemical weapons and evidence of concealed research and development activities. The ISG cannot conclude whether the missing WMD were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq, hidden in Iraq, or transported out of Iraq.
Any of those possible alternatives would have been in violation of multiple UN resolutions. It is also possible that WMD exist in weapon caches or munitions sites not searched by the ISG.
Regardless of the status of these stockpiles, Iraq had both the intent and the capability to develop and produce large quantities of chemical and biological WMD quickly once sanctions were lifted, and probably could have produced nuclear weapons in a matter of months to a few years.
By bribing various UN and other officials under the oil-for-food program, Iraq was forcing the end of sanctions. Had not the U.S. led Coalition invaded Iraq, the UN sanctions and inspection regime would have collapsed and Saddam Hussein would have recovered any hidden and transported WMD and revived his WMD programs, and would have had ready-to-deploy WMD by the time this report is being written.
Think about it. Saddam once had and used WMD. He still wanted them. He lied about having them. He refused access by inspectors. He concealed WMD activities over a period of 12 years. He said he destroyed what WMD he had, but he had no evidence to prove that. Even if he had destroyed them, that would have violated UN resolutions and the terms of his surrender in 1991.
Would any sane person believe that he really did not have WMD in 2003? If you do not know any sane people, try out some of these:
And mark my words; he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them. President Clinton, December 16, 1998
We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country. Al Gore, September 23, 2002
We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction. Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002
I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country. Senator John Edwards, February 24, 2002
This was not a coin flip. The consequence of trusting Saddam would have been WMD in the hands of anti-American terrorists. Had President Bush simply trusted Saddam Hussein he would have violated his oath to defend his country.
On March 22, 2003, or 3 days into Operation Iraqi Freedom, President Bush addressed the nation.
And our mission is clear, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people.
Which part of the mission was a lie? Which part was not accomplished?
User Reviews
Submitted by munkeypants (user info) at 2005-03-14 20:34:35 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by ihurtFeellings (user info) at 2005-03-10 12:48:51 (#)
Ranking: 0
Munkeypants, in my PERSONAL opinion of al jazeera, they are the same as any other news organization. They do have my respect for not being afraid to hit on subjects of importance even though it pisses off the Hamas, Arab Gov's, and a lot of Arabs. Their story of accounts is always different from the US and BBC accounts, but who knows who is right half the time. Their articles do have a big impact on the Arab nations, so I like to keep track of what they say; while taking everything from all media with an objective mind.
------------------------
agreed. I find it interesting that both sides want desperately
to shut them down.
watch the movie 'control room'. i would love for a discussion on that.
Submitted by Brianthetruthspeaker (user info) at 2005-03-14 14:40:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
The belief that Saddam Hussein's regime possessed no "weapons of mass destruction" has hardened into a dogma so impervious to fact that discordant evidence is passed over without registering. In an interview with Fox News, the head of the Iraq Survey Group stated that "10 or 12 sarin and mustard gas shells have been found in various locations in Iraq". Not long ago a shell containing nearly a gallon of sarin was rigged into a bomb placed by terrorists. Yet not even many supporters of President Bush's policies bother to argue any longer that Iraqi chemical and biological weapons, readily available for terrorist operations, were a threat that justified deposing the Ba'athist regime. There seems to have been a widespread expectation that, upon entering Iraq, our troops would find WMD's neatly lined up and labeled, and that the Ba'athists would make no effort to conceal or disperse them. When that scenario didn't materialize, the media world lost interest. Now, as Saddam's arsenal slowly comes to light, the molders of public opinion just don't care.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2005-03-11 11:05:53 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Auf-Der-Maur (user info) at 2005-03-10 16:18:42 (#)
Ranking: -1
"If they bombed a crowd killing 25 innocents just for a slim chance of killing a soilder they are a terrorist"
What if they, say, bombed a city full of civilians to kill a few soldiers on false pretexts of war? America has killed far more innocent people than terrorists have
--------------
I am sorry did I miss when the coalition leveled a city? Can you show me any conflict in modern history when more thought has gone into sparing the lives of civilians, or causing the least damage to the infrastructure? The US never bombed a target where it was much more likely to kill civilians then kill rebels or terrorists, or have they used killing civilians as a scare tactic. Both of which are hallmarks of the "insurgents" or "freedom fighters" or as i like to call them terrorists. I wouldn't use that label on someone who who attacked a military patrol, but unfortunately most of the deaths caused in Iraq now are by cowards who are willing to blow up their own people.
Submitted by Auf-Der-Maur (user info) at 2005-03-10 16:18:42 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
"If they bombed a crowd killing 25 innocents just for a slim chance of killing a soilder they are a terrorist"
What if they, say, bombed a city full of civilians to kill a few soldiers on false pretexts of war? America has killed far more innocent people than terrorists have
Submitted by ihurtFeellings (user info) at 2005-03-10 16:06:01 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2005-03-10 15:53:03 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-03-10 08:28:03 (#)
Ranking: -2
"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"
----------------------------------------------------
You could call someone a freedom fighter if they attacked soilders. If they bombed a crowd killing 25 innocents just for a slim chance of killing a soilder they are a terrorist. Anyone who can't see that I can't have serious a conversation with because there sense of right and wrong is too far out of touch with mine.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Very Good point.
While I was there I didn't have a chance to watch or log onto al jazeera broadcasts, but from what I can tell many of there stories do not seem accurate.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2005-03-10 15:56:07 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by ihurtFeellings (user info) at 2005-03-10 12:48:51 (#)
Ranking: 0
Munkeypants, in my PERSONAL opinion of al jazeera, they are the same as any other news organization. They do have my respect for not being afraid to hit on subjects of importance even though it pisses off the Hamas, Arab Gov's, and a lot of Arabs. Their story of accounts is always different from the US and BBC accounts, but who knows who is right half the time. Their articles do have a big impact on the Arab nations, so I like to keep track of what they say; while taking everything from all media with an objective mind.
-------------------------------------
I have lived in Muslim countries, and if you think FOX is out in right field then Al Jezeera is out of the damn ballpark.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2005-03-10 15:53:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-03-10 08:28:03 (#)
Ranking: -2
"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"
----------------------------------------------------
You could call someone a freedom fighter if they attacked soilders. If they bombed a crowd killing 25 innocents just for a slim chance of killing a soilder they are a terrorist. Anyone who can't see that I can't have serious a conversation with because there sense of right and wrong is too far out of touch with mine.
Submitted by ihurtFeellings (user info) at 2005-03-10 12:48:51 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Munkeypants, in my PERSONAL opinion of al jazeera, they are the same as any other news organization. They do have my respect for not being afraid to hit on subjects of importance even though it pisses off the Hamas, Arab Gov's, and a lot of Arabs. Their story of accounts is always different from the US and BBC accounts, but who knows who is right half the time. Their articles do have a big impact on the Arab nations, so I like to keep track of what they say; while taking everything from all media with an objective mind.
HadToBeDone, did I say "I've never heard of that?" No I did not. Let me also say you, nor do I know exactly what our Gov has or does not have. We also do not what they did or did not see in the way of arms movement. Like I said earlier, would they admit they knew about it if they messed up and didn't apprehend the transports?
Let me also reiterate the fact that one a nuclear bomb the size of the one used at Hiroshima is about 3 meters by 1 meter. You could fit several in a moving van or tractor trailer (they don't all ride around on goats their), and one is all he really needed.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2005-03-10 09:39:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-03-10 08:28:03 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Remember this drivel you said about me?
----------------
Submitted by Brianthetruthspeaker (user info) at 2005-03-05 17:18:06 (#)
Ranking: -2
You are so misinformed it is almost impossible to start.
You are lying to every one.
The president is not the king.
Do you really believe that people are so stupid to believe your crap?
You are a mental midget.
----------
And that was my best political posts. It was a unifying effort, bringing the left and right of Uber together----leaving you the sole detractor. That makes me think that you may be the propogandist spewing garbage.
-2 for being unable to appreciate other perspectives.
"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-03-10 08:20:33 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
+2 for Beer!
Submitted by TheSpook (user info) at 2005-03-10 08:07:18 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
"I am 45 yrs old and a Military Veteran of 20 yrs of service."
20 years of brainwashing would make me a prick too. Try thinking for yourself, you right-wing nutjob propaganda spouting fuck.
Submitted by Danger_Ranger (user info) at 2005-03-10 04:23:16 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
"Which part of the mission was a lie?"
Scoffing at suggestions it had anything to do with all that fucking oil.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-03-10 03:36:13 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
I refuse to believe you are 45. People above 30 generally begin to develop a sense of... maturity when reasoning their points. I'm not saying they're necessarily right, but they manage to come off without reasoning like a twelve year old.
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2005-03-10 00:31:23 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by ihurtFeellings (user info) at 2005-03-09 22:18:02 (#)
Ranking: 0
Most Satellites do not "sit" over any area; they orbit and pass areas for a limited time. Now suppose the US did devote a satellite to Iraq. How many square miles can it cover? All of the satellites I am aware of take still images that must be analyzed (because they look crappy), but lets pretend this one takes nice videos. Can the Private who is monitoring the screen tell the difference between a truckload of nukes and a truckload of milk, or lumber
-----------
Someone has never heard of satellites that "sit" in geo-synchronous orbit? And you presume to lecture me? Hell naw, babydoll. The US has satellites in geo-synchronous orbit over the areas they want to watch. And for 15 years, that has been the Middle East. Do you really think we don't have geo-synchronous and orbitting satellites that hit the area and that we haven't been monitoring them for years?
The US has approximately 400 spy satellites, some of which can shoot hi-res video that can track in on one person. If he trucked thos WMD's out, we SHOULD know about it. Unless the intelligence system needs a massive overhaul.
Submitted by munkeypants (user info) at 2005-03-10 00:24:04 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by ihurtFeellings (user info) at 2005-03-09 23:43:22 (#)
Ranking: 0
Munkeypants I have been on the ground as they went over my head, let me tell you how accurate the are.
-------------------------------------
i beleive you.
hey, listen. what do you think of al jazeera?
Submitted by Ed_0150 (user info) at 2005-03-10 00:03:36 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Sassmasterr (user info) at 2005-03-09 14:33:25 (#)
Ranking: 2
thanks Brian, you'll probably get the same igorant flaming as any of these type of posts get.
Submitted by ihurtFeellings (user info) at 2005-03-09 23:52:51 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Jgreening:
Sure, a lot of people want "democracy" in Iraq.
Even some Iraqis. *ba da ching*
Bad joke, fuck off.
I know you meant it as a joke, but it is funny how true that statement is. It seems many people view "Iraqi Citizens" as part of one belief sharing group. When in fact there are many groups within the country, just as there are different beliefs in the US. And in fact a lot of the people are glad to be out from under Saddam's rule. Conversely, a lot of Iraqis believe his type of rule is right, that women should have no right, that their leader is a god. The are also people their who are glad Saddam is out of power, but still do not want western or Europeans in their country.
One of the goals of terrorism is call scare tactics. Scare tactics are carried out by the unwitting media everyday. "A carbomb goes off and injures 2 and kills one." The Iraqi people hear this and are afraid to openly support the new Government. Americans here this and think that the ENTIRE populous of Iraq hates the US.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-03-09 23:44:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
HELLO, BASE? I HAVE FOUND A WMD! THAT'S RIGHT, I HAVE FOUND A WAFFELL OF MASS DELICIOUSNESS! CURRENT LOCATION IS MY STOMACH, OVER.
http://www.toothpastefordinner.com
Submitted by ihurtFeellings (user info) at 2005-03-09 23:43:22 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Munkeypants I have been on the ground as they went over my head, let me tell you how accurate the are.
Submitted by munkeypants (user info) at 2005-03-09 23:40:20 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by ihurtFeellings (user info) at 2005-03-09 23:25:16 (#)
Ranking: 0
Munkeypants: One warhead in the hands of the wrong person can kill far more people than were in that hotel. The militaries "bombs" are far more accurate than you think. Cities are not just bombed out as they were in Vietnam. In most cases the guided missiles are so strategic that one portion of a building in the middle of a city can be taken out without breaking the adjoining glass. It is always a travesty when any child or innocent person is injured, but that is, regretfully, the cost of war. Also, will you see the toddler that walks into a room full of soldiers in Fallujah with an armed hand grenade in his diaper? Probably not.
-----------------------------------------------
actually, i have felt the same way before.
no the missiles aren't as accurate as they will have you believe.
honey, the footage is out there. there are way more dead civillians than
you know about.
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2005-03-09 23:38:08 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
I'm sorry, but after readin "Saddam" I gave up.
I don't give a fuck if the war is "justified" or not.
I don't give a fuck if we found one vial of anthrax or a million long range missles alreay equipped and aimed at DC.
I want to see a viable, comprehensive exit strategy that gets the American troops OUT OF THAT FUCKING COUNTRY.
Because no matter WHEN we leave, us doing so will start a countdown to a revolution in that country.
NO MATTER WHEN WE LEAVE.
Sure, a lot of people want "democracy" in Iraq.
Even some Iraqis. *ba da ching*
Bad joke, fuck off.
But if the past year and a half isn't enough proof that the region will not allow outside interference, what more proof do we need?
Submitted by Thirty_Four_Eggs (user info) at 2005-03-09 23:27:20 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Brianthetruthspeaker (user info) at 2005-03-09 23:11:08 (#)
Ranking: 0
"Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority ... It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation--and their ideas from suppression--at the hand of an intolerant society."
So if you plan to kill me Ill give you my address so we can take care of this in person.
I am 45 yrs old and a Military Veteran of 20 yrs of service.
I sent the last 10 years as an instructor at the Navy's school of (CQB)
That's Close Quarter battle.
So just incase you want to go.
Pack a lunch.
I have walked over better men than you on the way to a good fight.
Wow your a dumb old ignorant fuck. I hope your proud of this achievement.
You must be some coward too, why didnt you die for your country? Use your friends as shields?
And you havent given me 'your address' at all. What is it? Where do you live?
Submitted by ihurtFeellings (user info) at 2005-03-09 23:25:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Thorpe: I'm not ignoring the logistics as visual identification is just as important, however you are correct in that signal interception and intel are very important. All of the means of weapons hunting in a country that you don't have access to is nearly impossible.
Capibara: The possibility that weapons may exist coupled with Saddam's hatred of the US and his warfare tactics does pose a huge threat. If he didn't have weapons, why be stubborn. If you destroyed them, he should have just proved it. NO president makes decisions 100% solo. They have to take advice, not just from former leaders and "one senator" but from many senators, congressman, past and present leaders. All of which Bush did.
Munkeypants: One warhead in the hands of the wrong person can kill far more people than were in that hotel. The militaries "bombs" are far more accurate than you think. Cities are not just bombed out as they were in Vietnam. In most cases the guided missiles are so strategic that one portion of a building in the middle of a city can be taken out without breaking the adjoining glass. It is always a travesty when any child or innocent person is injured, but that is, regretfully, the cost of war. Also, will you see the toddler that walks into a room full of soldiers in Fallujah with an armed hand grenade in his diaper? Probably not.
Submitted by Thirty_Four_Eggs (user info) at 2005-03-09 22:50:34 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
I promise... im rating the post not the poster
Its just a happy coincidence that your a total cockhead that deserves to die
Submitted by munkeypants (user info) at 2005-03-09 22:49:22 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
so over 53 warheads we are bombimg cities? cities with people?
when you picture this war do you think we are dropping bombs on
guys with towels on their heads running through the desert?
it's not like that. we are BOMBING cities. a city like boston.
with PEOPLE. children with half of their faces fucking blown off.
dead bodies under the rubble of what used to be a home.
we bombed a fucking hotel full of people. what? didn't see that on fox news?
no. you won't. the video is there though.
Submitted by Degreeless_Capibara (user info) at 2005-03-09 22:34:01 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
So are you saying that because there was a possibility that they had weapons we didn't see, they were justified for going in there?
Just because Bush had the advice of former government leaders to go into Iraq, does that mean he should? HE is the president, not them. If one senator tells you to jump off a bridge over a river that was harboring WMD, would you?
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-03-09 22:27:49 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
You're ignoring the logistics of looking for weapons. Sigint and humint (signal interception and intelligence) are far far more valuable than visual identification in these cases.
Submitted by ihurtFeellings (user info) at 2005-03-09 22:18:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Most Satellites do not "sit" over any area; they orbit and pass areas for a limited time. Now suppose the US did devote a satellite to Iraq. How many square miles can it cover? All of the satellites I am aware of take still images that must be analyzed (because they look crappy), but lets pretend this one takes nice videos. Can the Private who is monitoring the screen tell the difference between a truckload of nukes and a truckload of milk, or lumber? If we did suspect something was on a truck, but didn't have the manpower on the ground nearby to intercept it, do you think "The Administration" would champion that? Furthermore, have we ruled out the possibility that the weapons could be buried?
Now, unmanned spy drones cannot fly very far, contrary to what you see on TV. Also, the Iraqi military did have anti-air weaponry, and they would have been in full right to shoot down the crafts.
Don't try to analyze what our military, or any other military, is capable of, especially if you have no real clue. Just because we didn't catch a weapons transport in action, or they didn't have a blinking-visible-from-space sign saying "Illegal Weapons Stockpile" doesn't the weapons weren't there.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-03-09 22:11:58 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Bush said he had them. He didn't.
So Bush said he could have produced them. He couldn't.
So Bush said he would have wanted to be able to produce them. Then you fellated Bush.
So Saddam would have resumed the starting of his program to recommence his WMD starting program if sanctions were lifted, eh? That's definitely worth 100 000 civilian deaths and the destruction of an entire country's infrastructure. And remember, the anti-war movement was not arguing for the lifting of sanctions. If anything, they were asking for an increase.
I despise you.
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2005-03-09 21:28:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by ihurtFeellings (user info) at 2005-03-09 17:25:13 (#)
Ranking: 2
HadToBeDone: Television's depiction of military intelligence and what "WE" can see is nowhere near reality I assure you. - Still decent of you not to auto -2 his post on subject stance though. The US would and currently DOES let UN inspectors in on a regular basis. So does England, France, Et al.
----------
It takes something VERY special to get a -2 from me.
My comment, however, is based on the fact that we DO have satellites that sit over problem areas of the globe, and I can not believe that we haven't had one stationed over the Middle East for at least a decade. That said, it SHOULD have captured something which would resemble shipments of stockpiled weapons. They didn't. How do I know? Because that would have been championed by the administration.
Now, assume that we DON'T have a sattelite in geo-synchronous orbit over the Middle East (which makes us dumb. plain and simple). We would have heard from someone who does have insane amounts of intelligence and surveillance. Think Russia or Israel. Send a few unmanned spy drones over, and we would be hearing all about it.
Therefore, my statement stands. If it had happened as he hypothesizes, we would have heard all about it.
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-03-09 19:55:11 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Holy shit! They had 53 weapons?!?!
I agree that a nation that killed 4 million SE Asians with Napalm and Agent Orange and over 200 000 Japanese with nukes has the right to invade Iraq since there were 53 weapons there!!!
Wait, no i don't.
Submitted by Degreeless_Capibara (user info) at 2005-03-09 19:38:30 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
They found 53 chemical weapons. But the thing is, we always knew he had chemical weapons. We knew he gassed the Kurds, a tactic not implemented since its introduction in WWI. Yet, that was over a decade ago. Kinda late for those, huh?
What you're trying to do is redefine our mission from solely nuclear weapons (which is what Bush meant when he said WMD) to ALL weapons that could cause massive destruction. If it was solely for those, we already had the knowledge. Wouldn't it have been more prudent to invade right when Bush came into office then?
Submitted by ihurtFeellings (user info) at 2005-03-09 17:25:13 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
HadToBeDone: Television's depiction of military intelligence and what "WE" can see is nowhere near reality I assure you. - Still decent of you not to auto -2 his post on subject stance though. The US would and currently DOES let UN inspectors in on a regular basis. So does England, France, Et al.
Caulaincourt you and TheSpook are narrow minded pricks. You two don't give posts like this a read before you -2 and move on. Then, you seem to speed-read through, find something that stands out and -2 again. And when you feel like the post actually has validity, you repeat step #2!
If any one of you were the President at that time, and had the advise from former presidents, senators, congressman, secretaries of this that and the other all saying that Saddam was an immense threat and needed to be destroyed, what would you do?
A. Go to War, take Saddam out, free the people, set up government, attempt stability.
B. Do nothing and perhaps stand the chance of another Sept 11?
Sure it's easy to ridicule now, but where was your great insight then?
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-03-09 16:56:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
First off, this is well written and coherent. I did not see one spelling mistake or garbled sentence.
Assuming you didn't copy this from somewhere (likely), well done.
You begin by stating the findings of the Duelfer Commision, which should come as a surprise to no-one.
Namely that there were no stockpiles of WMD's in Iraq, and no extant methods of production for such. I believe this is true.
Next you assume that, if freed from sanctions, international vigilance and the threat of reprisals Hussein would recommence his pre-1991 weapons programmes. This is a reasonable assumption, but an unlikely set of circumstances. Although I haven't read up on the Oil-for-Food bribes business, it is more likely both parties were filling their own pockets rather than negotiating an end to sanctions.
Finally you assert that the (hypothetical) potential for future development of WMD's is sufficient reason for a "pre-emptive strike." This is the unreasonable leap in your reasoning. I posed this question in a post some time ago - http://www.ubersite.com/m/47968 - a post which is pretty similar to your own, though lacking the most recent facts.
But I came to the opposite conclusion. That the potential for future development (not guarunteed to succeed) of WMD's is NOT sufficient reason to invade. After all, such a condition can be applied to any country, at any time. This is the true danger of the "Bush Doctrine," and one of the many reasons people genuinely fear Bush's continuing presidency.
+2 for posting something worth arguing over, and not lifted directly from http://www.worldnetdaily.com/ (I checked)
Submitted by the_lone_stranger (user info) at 2005-03-09 16:35:59 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
kindly change your name to briantheasschancre.
Submitted by strider (user info) at 2005-03-09 16:11:59 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Better formatting of quotes would have been nice, but otherwise a well written argument.
Submitted by munkeypants (user info) at 2005-03-09 14:34:50 (#)
Ranking: 0
Do you have a link to a report where Saddam actually threatened
america with these WMD's? I say he never did but, I don't know,
maybe he did. I can't find anything on it.
I am curious as to how real the threat to America was...
==========================
Osama is a pretty rich guy, who do you think would sell him weapons to further his goals? Saddam would have been first in line...
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2005-03-09 16:11:32 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
And I am sick of this "He didn't let inspectors in" argument. If the UN said the US had to let weapons inspectors into our facilities, do you think we'd do it? Hell fucking no. We'd scream and piss and moan about our sovereignty and our right to govern ourselves without international oversight. Sound familiar? It really sounds an awful lot like Saddam's own reasons for refusing access.
The ones who hawk the war are the same ones that call the UN worthless, and yet you base your arguments around them. Love them or leave them, assholes, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2005-03-09 16:05:17 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Here is another hypothesis: Iraq's WMD were hidden and/or moved out of Iraq before our invasion in March 2003.
It was no secret that the U.S. and the rest of the world really wanted to find those WMD.
-----------
Then we apparently need to shit-can the entire US intelligence system, because we were supposedly watching for that stuff. More incompetence on the part of Bush's administration. I'm sure he appreciates your indictment.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2005-03-09 16:02:11 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Oh and Bob, thanks for leaving out the rest of my reply.
Selective arguing can be handy when you're cornered.
Submitted by munkeypants (user info) at 2005-03-09 16:01:19 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by keirzty34 (user info) at 2005-03-09 15:46:20 (#)
Ranking: 0
Yeah, it's on the same page as Osama's "threat."
You stupid fucking bitch.
---------------------------------------
tsk tsk. I was just asking for the source. I have looked but...
oh, maybe you can help me!
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2005-03-09 16:01:19 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Sure Bob, whatever. If Colin Powell said it, it HAS to be the Truth, right?!!?
I also remember the Secretary of State back tracking on what he said prior to the war.
You guys are breaking records of stupidity.
If you're pro war, fine. I don't care. But have a spine about it and quit coming up with lame excuses.
Submitted by Rawrg (user info) at 2005-03-09 15:51:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
This was interesting, and nice to hear an article that isn't just hate blog garbage on the subject.
Submitted by vettesrule88 (user info) at 2005-03-09 15:51:01 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
+2 for not going the popular, easy route and just going along with everyone else. This was a perfect political argument, you used facts, figures, but the only thing i dont like is your quotes, quatations can make anyone say anything, at lewast in such short measures.... still a +2
very nice, very nice
Submitted by TheSpook (user info) at 2005-03-09 15:48:48 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
You are a fucking cancer.
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2005-03-09 15:47:25 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
"The United States built up an armed force of about 150,000 surrounding Iraq to support those inspectors. Our Secretary of State testified in public on what we knew about Iraq's WMD and concealment methods. Even at the end, President Bush gave Saddam 48 hours notice before invading. "
Holy fuck! That's hilarious!
Hilarious, but true. If you remember before that, The UN gave Hussein three months to hide them, um, I mean let the inspectors back in.
Submitted by keirzty34 (user info) at 2005-03-09 15:46:20 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by munkeypants (user info) at 2005-03-09 14:34:50 (#)
Ranking: 0
Do you have a link to a report where Saddam actually threatened
america with these WMD's? I say he never did but, I don't know,
maybe he did. I can't find anything on it.
I am curious as to how real the threat to America was...
----------------------------
Yeah, it's on the same page as Osama's "threat."
You stupid fucking bitch.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2005-03-09 15:44:45 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
"The United States built up an armed force of about 150,000 surrounding Iraq to support those inspectors. Our Secretary of State testified in public on what we knew about Iraq's WMD and concealment methods. Even at the end, President Bush gave Saddam 48 hours notice before invading. "
Holy fuck! That's hilarious!
"Okay mr.President, Saddam walked up to us and handed out his Javex supplies. We spent billions to deploy this huge military force but hey, let's pack our bags and go home! Yay!"
Do you really think that countries would build up massive forces halfway around the world and jeopardize alliances just to make an impression?
If so, you're more naive than a 6 month old baby.
This war WAS gonna happen, regardless of anything.
Submitted by Jeanneee (user info) at 2005-03-09 15:44:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Whatever, wookie - you know that Western culture as we know it would cease to exist if Al-Qaeda gets their monkey paws on Russell Crowe.
THE STREETS SHALL FLOW WITH THE BLOOD OF THE NON BELIEVERS
JIHAD ON ALL INFIDELS
ETC. ETC.
Submitted by Fartman (user info) at 2005-03-09 15:36:56 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Wiggles (user info) at 2005-03-09 15:22:40 (#)
Ranking: -2
Why doesn't the U.S. have to disarm?
------------------------
Because WE represent truth, justice, and all that is good in this world.
(You best believe that or we'll kill you to prove it).
Submitted by Wiggles (user info) at 2005-03-09 15:22:40 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Why doesn't the U.S. have to disarm?
Submitted by wookie (user info) at 2005-03-09 15:11:13 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
Submitted by Jeanneee (user info) at 2005-03-09 14:53:41 (#)
Ranking: 1
This is very interesting.
Here's something else interesting: Russell Crowe is claiming that Al-Qaeda wants to kidnap him as part of a "cultural-destabilization" plot or some such thing. This is so weird, I can't even bring myself to make fun of it.
------------------------------------------------
I am so glad I'm not the only person that read that. He's either full of shit, or Al Qaeda is seriously mistaken in their impression of Crowe's importance to Western culture.
Submitted by Flak (user info) at 2005-03-09 14:57:13 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by Jeanneee (user info) at 2005-03-09 14:53:41 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
This is very interesting.
Here's something else interesting: Russell Crowe is claiming that Al-Qaeda wants to kidnap him as part of a "cultural-destabilization" plot or some such thing. This is so weird, I can't even bring myself to make fun of it.
Submitted by kai070169 (user info) at 2005-03-09 14:42:09 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
The U.S. has more WMD's than everyone else combined. Keeping that in mind, this post is fucking garbage. If the US had any balls they'd go after N. Korea.
Submitted by Sassmasterr (user info) at 2005-03-09 14:41:35 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
ah, nevermind. i found it...and printed 20 copies...and distributed them to various coworkers...and laughed at them
Submitted by bignasty (user info) at 2005-03-09 14:39:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
indeed sir, say it like it is
Submitted by GodChicken (user info) at 2005-03-09 14:39:18 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
10 days till the anniversary.
A lot has changed.
http://www.ubersite.com/m/14174
Submitted by corporate_drone0723 (user info) at 2005-03-09 14:36:43 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
I'm seeking to get laid sometime soon too, but that don't necessarily mean its gonna happen.
Just because someone wants to do something doesn't mean it's gonna happen.
Submitted by TheSpook (user info) at 2005-03-09 14:35:33 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2005-03-09 14:28:19 (#)
Ranking: 0
"Which part of the mission was a lie? Which part was not accomplished?"
Pretty much all of it, dude.
Submitted by munkeypants (user info) at 2005-03-09 14:34:50 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Do you have a link to a report where Saddam actually threatened
america with these WMD's? I say he never did but, I don't know,
maybe he did. I can't find anything on it.
I am curious as to how real the threat to America was...
Submitted by Sassmasterr (user info) at 2005-03-09 14:33:25 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
thanks Brian, you'll probably get the same igorant flaming as any of these type of posts get.
do you have a link to that section of the report (that says they found some junk)?
if not, i'll be searching a while
Submitted by jumpinjellyfish (user info) at 2005-03-09 14:32:48 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Long...and boring. Cut and paste sucks. 53 WMD's isn't a weapons program it's an inventory error.
I really like the way conservatives give examples of Democrats who supported the reasons for going to war as if that proves "W" had good reasons for starting the war. All that proves to me is that he lied to them also to justify his personal vendetta against Saddam.
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2005-03-09 14:28:19 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"Which part of the mission was a lie? Which part was not accomplished?"
Pretty much all of it, dude.