Got WMD?

[Clashman]

Even 688 called for "all Member states to respect the sovreignty, territorial integrity, and political independence of Iraq".

There was no legal justification for the use of no-fly zones against Iraq, and there was especially no justification for anything regarding a southern no-fly zone. That was just unilateraly enacted a year after the first one. It is the United States, Britain, and France which violated the cease fire through the imposition of the no-fly zones. Low-intensity warfare was being conducted before even the earliest of the broken resolutions you listed. A double-standard would seem to be set here, holding Iraq to the highest degree of compliance and at the same time allowing the U.S, Britain, and France (which pulled out in 1998 due to a belief that, you guessed it, no fly-zones violate international law), to violate those same resolutions with impunity.

 

[Vince]

History of the Southern No-Fly Zone:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/southern_watch.htm


The actual UNSCR 688 text:

http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/scres/1991/688e.pdf

Which basically spells out the need to preserve the indiginous populations that the Iraqi's were slaughtering, raping, and killing by the thousands. Which, ironically, coincide with the positioning of the No-Fly Zones and their origonal reason for existence. *

Several of these atrocities are stated here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect4.html

The FAS link also explains how the hostility started... as the Iraqi's at first agreed and then began violations as the UN kept sanctions on the country.

 

[Clashman]

http://ods-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/596/24/IMG/NR059624.pdf?OpenElement

688 pertained most specifically to the Kurdish controlled regions of Iraq, and with the delivering of humanitarian aid to refugees. The no-fly zones dropped any and all pretenses of being related to helping humanitarian aid flow very early on.

 

[Vince]

688 pertained most specifically to the Kurdish controlled regions of Iraq, and with the delivering of humanitarian aid to refugees. The no-fly zones dropped any and all pretenses of being related to helping humanitarian aid flow very early on.

Gravely concerned by the recession of the Iraqi civilian population in many parts of Iraq, including most recently in Kurdish-populated areas, which led to a massive flow of refugees towards and across international frontiers and to cross-border incursions which threatened international peace and security in the region

Most specifically? It names them as a "recent" example. It specifically states that they're concerned about the Iraq population in "many parts of Iraq". Are you sayign this is wrong?

Please, don't spin words and statements to your advanatge via 'alternative' interpretations; especially ones as easily seen as this.

It continues:

Demands that Iraq, as a contribution to removing the threat to international peace and security in the region, immediatly end this repression, and in the same context expresses hope that an open dialoge will take place to ensure that the human and political rights of all Iraqi citizans are respected.

FAS then continues the story:

President George Bush announced Aug. 26, 1992, a decision by a coalition of U.N. forces to begin surveillance operations in Iraq below the 32nd parallel. The goal was to ensure Iraq’s compliance with UNSCR 688. To facilitate the monitoring, the coalition barred all Iraqi fixed and rotary wing aircraft from flying over the surveillance area. With the president’s announcement, U.S. Central Command activated Joint Task Force Southwest Asia, a command and control unit for coalition forces monitoring the no-fly zone. The mission was dubbed Operation Southern Watch. The first Southern Watch sortie was flown Aug. 27, 1992 - less than 24 hours after the announcement.

At first, Iraq complied with the no-fly restriction, but Hussein began challenging Southern Watch operations after the UN’s decision to retain sanctions against Iraq, Nov. 24, 1992. A U.S. Air Force F-16 on patrol in the no-fly zone Dec. 27, 1992, encountered a MiG-25 Foxbat. When the MiG pilot locked his air-to-air radar on the F-16, the American pilot destroyed the Foxbat with an air-to-air missile. Shortly after the shoot down, Hussein positioned surface-to-air missiles in Southern Iraq below the 32nd parallel. Since these missiles threatened pilots flying Southern Watch missions, the coalition ordered Hussein to move them above the 32nd parallel. Hussein ignored the ultimatum, even after warnings from the U.N.

On Jan. 6, 1993, four U.N. allies, the United States, Russia, France and the United Kingdom, agreed to work together in enforcing UNSCR 688. A week later, coalition aircraft destroyed surface to air missile sites and their command and control units in Southern Iraq. In addition to this action, on Jan. 17 coalition naval forces disabled an Iraqi nuclear facility with Tomahawk cruise missiles in support of UNSCR 687, the resolution demanding the destruction of all Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

FAS: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/southern_watch.htm
UNSCR 688: http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/scres/1991/688e.pdf

 

[Clashman]

And you know very well Vince that this resolution also called for all member states, (this includes Britain, France, and the U.S.), to respect the territorial integrity, political independence, and sovreignty of Iraq, which no-fly zones are a clear violation of. So quit with your own spin.

And lets not forget why Kurds and Shiites were in danger in the first place. It was because Bush the elder told them to rise up against Saddam, and then when they actually did, said "gotcha", and told Saddam to do whatever he wants with them.

The impositions of no-fly zones are in violation not only of the treaties but of general international law as well. You can't have a treaty where one side is held to strictest compliance and another which can break the terms of the treaty at will. That's called a broken contract. What reason would Iraq have for complying if it was very clear that no matter what they did they would be attacked anyway?

 

[Natoma]

BTW...

We didn't have enough forces in Baghdad. Or did you not notice the fact that we couldn't protect their museums that housed artifacts from the birthplace of human civilization dating back thousands of years?

Lol...are you kidding me? As if protecting a museum is some high priority vs. risking american lives?

By the way, I guess this statement of yours means you missed the reports today that the majority of "so called missing" artifacts are not actually missing at all?

Sources, should you be in doubt:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,974193,00.html

So, there's the picture: 100,000-plus priceless items looted either under the very noses of the Yanks, or by the Yanks themselves. And the only problem with it is that it's nonsense. It isn't true. It's made up. It's bollocks....Not all of it, of course. There was some looting and damage to a small number of galleries and storerooms, and that is grievous enough. But over the past six weeks it has gradually become clear that most of the objects which had been on display in the museum galleries were removed before the war. Some of the most valuable went into bank vaults, where they were discovered last week. Eight thousand more have been found in 179 boxes hidden "in a secret vault". And several of the larger and most remarked items seem to have been spirited away long before the Americans arrived in Baghdad.

George is now quoted as saying that that items lost could represent "a small percentage" of the collection and blamed shoddy reporting for the exaggeration.

Imagine that...shoddy reporting? Nah...never happens.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32129-2003Jun8.html?referrer=emailarticle

BAGHDAD, June 8 -- The world was appalled. One archaeologist described the looting of Iraq's National Museum of Antiquities as "a rape of civilization." Iraqi scholars standing in the sacked galleries of the exhibit halls in April wept on camera as they stood on shards of cuneiform tablets dating back thousands of years.

Sounds like they could be describing you, Natoma.

The article continues:

...The museum was indeed heavily looted, but its Iraqi directors confirmed today that the losses at the institute did not number 170,000 artifacts as originally reported in news accounts.

Actually, about 33 priceless vases, statues and jewels were missing

Damn the coalition forces! 33 items missing and it's all our fault!! How can we sleep at night?!

Actually I heard about this on the news last night. I'm *very* pleased that the museums didn't lose nearly as many artifacts as originally reported. I'm *happy* about this.

But that does not change the fact that no additional forces were sent to protect the hospitals and museums from *any* looting. Contrary to your beliefs, culture of the human race is just as valuable, if not moreso actually, as the oil required to rebuild Iraq. If the oil was worth risking american lives, so was the culture of Iraq and the world worth that risk as well. It would have required maybe an extra unit of 10-20 soldiers per establishment to protect those buildings. I'm sorry you're too uncultured to see how important those artifacts are to us as a species. That they were certainly worth risking the lives of soldiers to protect.

We're there to rebuild that country right? Well how can you hope to rebuild a country if you don't pay attention to that country's history, nay the world's history, and try to preserve it as best as possible?

Also, I completely understand that this was a reporting error. But not as egregious as the reporting error with regard to the massive Uranium purchase from Niger that Bush parrotted in his State of the Union address, even though he knew it was falsified information. And certainly not as egregious as the reporting error from Colin Powell with regard to the high grade aluminum tubes purchase that Iraq made, that ended up only being enough to make rockets. Something that was debunked by any official with knowledge of the use for those tubes. It seems Colin Powell didn't go and vet his information, or he wouldn't have even reported it in the first place.

And we're *still* on the issue of whether or not there are any WMD in Iraq *now*, or prior to the war. It's funny. Bush was on TV yesterday speaking about how Iraq had WMD *Programs*, but spoke nothing about the actual weapons that he said existed in *massive* quantities in Iraq.

You only want to focus on the good news that there were less lost artifacts than previously reported and make a stink out of that, when it should be good news, not bad. But you don't want to pay attention to the outright deceptions and misleading testimony from the Bush administration with regard to our motives and intentions in Iraq from the get go, now that no WMD have been found. Not a trace. Not a sniff.

So please. At least be consistent with your ramblings of disgust with the media, and reported findings from the Bush administration. Misinformation is misinformation. However in this case, there being less lost artifacts doesn't even compare to the errors committed by the Bush Administration as a whole with regard to this whole WMD mess in Iraq.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Actually I heard about this on the news last night. I'm *very* pleased that the museums didn't lose nearly as many artifacts as originally reported. I'm *happy* about this.

The point is, you shouldn't have been so disgusted in the first place.

But that does not change the fact that no additional forces were sent to protect the hospitals and museums from *any* looting.

Natoma, you have to make priorities. We do not have infinite resources. Every resource we send into Iraq is another risk in both human life, and in money.

So if we sent in enough resources to protet some museum...what about protecting the local zoo? Where are you drawing the line? It's a freakin' war for crying out loud.

And say you DO send in coalition troops to "protect" the museum. Then "innocent Iraqis" attempt looting. What order do you give? Shoot to kill? Then you'll be bitching about more lives lost.

Do not use deadly force? Then you put coalition forces more at risk. The armed forces are not trained to be policemen. To quote an army general (name escapes me) "our job is to kill people and to break things."

On one hand you are bemoaning the looting of a museum, and "why didn't se send in forces to deal with it", while on the other hand you also have issues will army bulldozers crushing someone who puts themselves in their path.

You can't have it both ways.

If the IRAQI'S THEMSELVES aren't as interested in your twisted definition of "preserving their own culture", (by the looting of their own museum), then why should that be a priority for us to protect?

Contrary to your beliefs, culture of the human race is just as valuable, if not moreso actually, as the oil required to rebuild Iraq.

Yeah, tell that to any Iraqi who's looking for hand-outs.

No one is saying that culture isn't important. It is. However, "cultural artifacts" do not define culture. They are mere trinkets.

If the oil was worth risking american lives, so was the culture of Iraq and the world worth that risk as well.

Not as high a priority. I really can't believe you are putting a museum in the same light as the major and economic driver of the country.

It would have required maybe an extra unit of 10-20 soldiers per establishment to protect those buildings.

Oh, now you're an expert in military and police action in Iraq. Get over yourself.

I'm sorry you're too uncultured to see how important those artifacts are to us as a species.

I'm sorry you're too shallow to recongize that such trinkets in and of themselves are not really important at all. the discovery of the items, and their documentation of them, are.

We're there to rebuild that country right?

No. We're there to lay the foundation so they can rebuild themselves.

Well how can you hope to rebuild a country if you don't pay attention to that country's history, nay the world's history, and try to preserve it as best as possible?

Explain again how the loss or destruction of material trinkets is equivalent to not paying attention to their history?

Also, I completely understand that this was a reporting error. But not as egregious as the reporting error with regard to the massive Uranium purchase from Niger that Bush parrotted in his State of the Union address, even though he knew it was falsified information. And certainly not as egregious as the reporting error from Colin Powell with regard to the high grade aluminum tubes purchase that Iraq made, that ended up only being enough to make rockets. Something that was debunked by any official with knowledge of the use for those tubes. It seems Colin Powell didn't go and vet his information, or he wouldn't have even reported it in the first place.

Where again did Bush know any information was falsified...or are you again falling prey to preconceived ideas and shoddy / incomplete reporting?

And we're *still* on the issue of whether or not there are any WMD in Iraq *now*, or prior to the war.

Wrong. We KNOW there were WMD in Iraq BEFORE the war. Before not defined as the past 12 months, but from the mid 90's. And you know what? Tomorrow we'll still be asking if there are WMD in there now, and the question may never be answered. As I originally said....it's irrelevant.

You only want to focus on the good news that there were less lost artifacts than previously reported and make a stink out of that, when it should be good news, not bad.

Oh come on. Museum looting was the very first (therefore I assume most important to you) "failure" of the war. The only FOCUS I made on it was to inform you that it was no failure at all.

But you don't want to pay attention to the outright deceptions and misleading testimony from the Bush administration with regard to our motives and intentions in Iraq from the get go, now that no WMD have been found. Not a trace. Not a sniff.

Huh?

There's a difference between paying attention to them, and jumping to conlcusions. You are doing the latter. I'm not the one EXPECTING WMD to be found "immedately."

 

[Natoma]

Trinkets eh? So a tablet that had the first instance of Human Cuniform Writing is just a "trinket" eh? A tablet that detailed the first records known to human civilization with regard to how humans lived tens of thousands of years ago is just a trinket eh?

Please. Your comments alone expose what you think about our cultural history, as opposed to oil. No wonder you love the Bush Administration.

p.s.: In CIA documents released to the public (I read this in TIME btw. Please go and pick up last week's magazine and read for yourself), they informed the president days before he went on the air that the uranium purchase was a fraud. British intelligence knew this as well.

I mean, c'mon. The documents at the very least had the signatures of dignitaries that had been retired for over a decade, as the current rulers of Niger. Not to mention the other information that pointed to forgery.

Yet the President *still* used it in his speech.

The CIA (this is also in TIME) also told the president that while it was extremely unlikely, a worst worst case scenario, Iraq could have a nuke within a year. But most like it would be within the decade.

What does Bush do? Go on television and state that Iraq *will* have a nuclear (well, Nucular according to bush ) weapon within a year. That is most definitely a misrepresentation of the facts in order to fit one's own agenda.

Also, Bush and his administration were the ones saying that there were TONS of chem-bio weapons laying around just waiting to be found. When the inspectors were in there, the fact that they didn't find anything immediately was parrotted as "The inspections aren't working!!!!!"

This was like a week after the inspections began. Wait no, let me amend that. This was even *before* the inspections began. This was when Bush was speaking at the UN last summer thank you very much Mr. Rummy and Cheney.

So now that it's been 2 months, there is no resistance in Iraq with regard to actually finding WMD, and nothing has been found, we're expected to say "Well they need more time." Uhm, the Bush Administration seemed to say all the time that the inspectors were there that if *only* Saddam were not there cry: cry me a tear ), we'd find those weapons ASAP.

Now that same bellicosity is biting them in the ass. Impatience got them war. Impatience now is pushing the administration into defensive posture with no place to go. It's well deserved, and about time.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Trinkets eh? So a tablet that had the first instance of Human Cuniform Writing is just a "trinket" eh? A tablet that detailed the first records known to human civilization with regard to how humans lived tens of thousands of years ago is just a trinket eh?

Yup. TRINKET.

It has no bearing on the "future rebuilding" of Iraq. If it disappears tomorrow, it won't make a lick of difference.

Am I saying it's worthless? No. But nowhere near other priorities: immediate safeguarding of life and preservation of resources to drive the local economy.

Again, the significane of these artifcats with respect to "our cultural history" is the fact that we have discovered them, and already learned from them, and documented such things.

The objects, in and of themselves, once they have been discovered have little significance other than "ooohhh...look at that!".

Please. Your comments alone expose what you think about our cultural history, as opposed to oil. No wonder you love the Bush Administration.

Please. Your comments alone expose what you think about the value of human life vs. a piece of rock. No wonder you hate the Bush Administration.

p.s.: In CIA documents released to the public (I read this in TIME btw. Please go and pick up last week's magazine and read for yourself), they informed the president days before he went on the air that the uranium purchase was a fraud. British intelligence knew this as well.

I won't pay for Time. The actual text would be interesting though. Next time I go to the barber shop though, maybe I'll give it a read.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Also, Bush and his administration were the ones saying that there were TONS of chem-bio weapons laying around just waiting to be found. When the inspectors were in there, the fact that they didn't find anything immediately was parrotted as "The inspections aren't working!!!!!"

Where do you get this stuff?

I don't recall any such statements of "just lying around waiting to be found." It was "the existence of these weapons has been documented by the U.N. , and they are not yet accounted for." And I don't recall any words to the effect of "the inspectors didn't find them, therefore they aren't working." It was the inspectors not being fully cooperated with, and are therefore not working.

How can one have a conversation with you when you continaully misrepresent what was said?

 

[Natoma]

1) I've provided the quotes for everything that was stated. Hundreds of Tons of *existant* chem-bio weapons and nuclear material don't just up and disappear. Powell stated that they were *there* in Iraq at the moment he was making his pleas to the UN. Or would you like me to bring the post from the prior page up to this page to refresh everyone of Colin Powell's comments with regard to that matter?

2) If we can risk human life for oil, we can risk human life for our human culture. It's apparent to me that you value viscous sludge over human life. No wonder you love the Bush Administration. (We can go back and forth with this all day. )

 

[Joe DeFuria]

1) I've provided the quotes for everything that was stated. Hundreds of Tons of *existant* chem-bio weapons and nuclear material don't just up and disappear.

Correct.

Doesn't mean anyone lied. It means they haven't been found.

Powell stated that they were *there* in Iraq at the moment he was making his pleas to the UN. Or would you like me to bring the post from the prior page up to this page to refresh everyone of Colin Powell's comments with regard to that matter?

Was that true to the best of his knowledge?

2) If we can risk human life for oil, we can risk human life for our human culture.

We can also risk human life to save the 5 Assed Monkey too. You have to prioritize risk vs. reward.

It's apparent to me that you value viscous sludge over human life.

Wrong. Are you really that dense? You are talking about the key Iraqi economic driver as if it doesn't directly impact the human lives we are talking about.

I will spell it out for you:

Viscous Sludge = Basis of Economy for Iraqi People = Direct Impact on Human Life in Iraq.

Therefore:

To Value Iraq's Viscous Sludge is to Value Iraq's Human Life. These are not mutually exclusive.

Please tell me you are not trying to argue against that?

But tell me again how Iraqis begging for food / water / protection from Sadam Loyalists give a rat's ass about a piece of rock in a museum?

Or how ignoring that trinket could possibly lead to an environmental and econominc disaster?

No wonder you love the Bush Administration. (We can go back and forth with this all day. )

We could, if you want to continue to make wholly unreasonable arguments.

 

[Natoma]

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/op...un11,0,614281.column?coll=bal-home-columnists

WASHINGTON - In a few short months, President Bush has turned from being Paul Revere on the "imminent threat" of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction into a patient teacher of recent history.
"Intelligence throughout the decade showed that they had a weapons program," he instructed White House reporters the other day. "I am absolutely convinced with time we'll find out they did have a weapons program."

Nobody argues, though, with Saddam Hussein having had such weapons in the early 1990s, that he used them against rebellious Kurds and that U.N. inspectors found and directed the destruction of weapons components before they withdrew from Iraq in 1998.

So the pertinent question has always been whether, as the Bush administration insisted in launching the invasion, those weapons were in hand and so ready for use as to constitute a clear and present danger requiring immediate military action.

Mr. Bush's latest expressions of conviction that the Iraqis had a "weapons program" seemed a distinction and a hedge from his earlier statement on Polish television that "we found the weapons of mass destruction." His reference was to the two mobile facilities suspected of being capable of producing deadly chemical or biological agents.

With reporters parsing his words as if he were Bill Clinton playing semantic games over his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer found it necessary to say that Mr. Bush, "in saying programs, also applies to weapons," and "that includes everything knowable up to the opening shots of the war."

In the absence of the discovery of such weapons, however, the president is now actively engaged in low-balling the WMD rationale for the war. In saying that history will conclude he made the "absolute right decision" in invading Iraq, he is substituting Iraqi "liberation" as his justification, itself a somewhat premature self-congratulation in light of the continued turmoil in the conquered country, including more U.S. military casualties.

Although Mr. Bush did emphasize the goal of "regime change" as the invasion approached, the "imminent threat" of weapons of mass destruction was the driving force in the administration's argument that more time could not be afforded U.N. inspectors in their quest for them.

Understating the importance of the existence or absence of WMD at the time of the invasion won't settle the critical question of whether administration officials hyped government intelligence about the threat to win congressional support for launching pre-emptive war. Without WMD, what was being pre-empted?

E-mails to a columnist are hardly the equivalent of a Gallup poll, but mine have taken an interesting turn in recent weeks, from strong defenses of the president to questions about his rationale for the war.

One e-mailer writes: "You ask whether Bush's case was built on deception? Do Marylanders like crab cakes? It is abundantly clear from recent remarks by Secretary [of Defense Donald H.] Rumsfeld that the whole WMD argument was a gigantic hoax and fraud. He is now left to arguing that the Iraqis may have destroyed them. ... These people just lie. Why don't you just come out and say it?"

Another asks: "If Bill Clinton was impeached because he lied about having sex with an intern, shouldn't George W. Bush also be impeached for the much more serious lie of inventing the case for war against Iraq out of whole cloth?" And another: "Mr. Bush is a liar. I don't buy the spin that his intelligence was giving him wrong information. The CIA wasn't convinced about Iraq, and we all know how he discredited [U.N. chief inspector Hans] Blix."

Finally, another reader writes: "I find it odd that you do not utter the word 'impeach' in your articles. About the missing WMD which were the rationale for going to war in Iraq, Senator [Robert C.] Byrd is right to keep looking at the Constitution. If the Republicans were right to hound and clamor for impeachment of President Clinton because he 'lied' about his personal life, lying about reasons for going to war and putting many lives at risk is so much more egregious and serving of impeachment. Why the silence?"

So well stated.

 

[Sabastian]

While I haven't contributed to this thread and really have not read it I think this article pretty much sums up what I think.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/1051/defensewrapper.jsp?PID=1051-350&CID=1051-061103D

Who's Lying?

When the U.N. inspectors left Iraq in 1998, a substantial stockpile of Iraqi weapons remained. This stockpile was no figment of faulty intelligence reports; it was catalogued in great detail by the United Nations. And, on January 27th of this year, Hans Blix reiterated the inventory of weapons that - after five years - Hussein still hadn't accounted for: 8,500 liters of anthrax, 1,000 tons of poison gas, 6,500 bombs capable of delivering chemical weapons, and "thousands" of poison gas rockets. Was Blix lying about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction?

On December 17, 1998, Bill Clinton launched a military strike against Iraq, saying the mission was "to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs." Was Clinton lying about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction?

In 1998, Senator Robert Byrd argued strongly for military action against Iraq, saying, "the administration needs to act sooner rather than later." Apparently, Byrd's sense of urgency was much more acute when a fellow Democrat occupied the White House; even though President Bush cited the same reasons as Clinton, Byrd accuses the Republican of lying.

Twelve Galaxies

If Bush did fabricate evidence of Saddam's weapons, he must have done so in the 1990s, before becoming president. What else could explain the prior involvement of Clinton, Blix, the U.N. inspectors and everyone else who "knew" about the Iraqi weapons program? Maybe they all hatched the scheme at a meeting of the Secret Government Where Jews And Space Aliens Control The Fate Of The World. Or, maybe President Bush planned it more recently. Yeah, post-September 11th hubris. But that would require Bush to travel back in time and brainwash all those people. It could happen - it's about as plausible as Saddam Hussein unilaterally disarming.

Ultimately, this war was a Rorschach test for the world. Some people simply believe that Saddam Hussein - trustworthy chap that he is/was - voluntarily disarmed while nobody was looking, and that President Bush lied to lead us to war. Frame the argument however you want, this fundamental division still underlies any discussion about the war: you either trust President Bush more than you trust Saddam Hussein, or you don't.

 

[Natoma]

Yet another good article:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/925222.asp

These days, even some Republicans are questioning Bush’s rather cocksure attitude of only a few weeks ago, when he—and everyone else in his administration—were assuring American voters that (European doubts aside) Saddam Hussein had all manner of WMD, and that he was ready to funnel them into the global terrorism network. It’s become increasingly clear that the intelligence behind that assertion was often fuzzy and indirect—not nearly the rock-solid evidence that Bush, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell and others seemed to be citing.

* Natoma cues the quotes presented on earlier pages by moi

There's no doubt in my mind but that they current have chemical and biological weapons.

We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.

Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons.

The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.

The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons.

We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas.

Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets.Even the low end of 100 tons of agent would enable Saddam Hussein to cause mass casualties across more than 100 square miles of territory, an area nearly 5 times the size of Manhattan.

 

[Natoma]

While I haven't contributed to this thread and really have not read it I think this article pretty much sums up what I think.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/1051/defensewrapper.jsp?PID=1051-350&CID=1051-061103D

Who's Lying?
<snip>

No one doubts that Saddam *had* WMD and WMD Programs in the 80's and 90's. What people are doubting is whether or not he had them when the Administration was making its case for war last year and this year. The casus belli that pushed this country over the brink to commission of troops. *That* is what people are doubting. That is where people are saying that the threat of Saddam was overstated at best, or falsified at worse.

And lets not forget, yet again, there were falsifications in making the case for war, that with a little vetting, the administration could have easily seen were completely false. The Uranium purchase from Niger being the grand daddy of them all. Remember that the signatures on these "official" documents were from dignitaries that had retired over a decade ago.

And also the aluminum tubes purchase that Powell trotted out to the UN as proof that Iraq was trying to build a nuclear weapon *at that moment*. Turns out that every expert on the matter stated that the aluminum tubing could *never* be used to create a nuclear weapon because they weren't high grade enough. They could only be used for UN resolution legal rockets.

 

[Sabastian]

While I haven't contributed to this thread and really have not read it I think this article pretty much sums up what I think.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/1051/defensewrapper.jsp?PID=1051-350&CID=1051-061103D

Who's Lying?
<snip>

No one doubts that Saddam <snip>

Clear enough, you trust Saddam more then you trust GW. Hmm, why am I not surprised...

on January 27th of this year, Hans Blix reiterated the inventory of weapons that - after five years - Hussein still hadn't accounted for: 8,500 liters of anthrax, 1,000 tons of poison gas, 6,500 bombs capable of delivering chemical weapons, and "thousands" of poison gas rockets. Was Blix lying about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction?

There were not allot doubting that he still had them .... just how to go about disarming the country was the real issue.

 

[Natoma]

While I haven't contributed to this thread and really have not read it I think this article pretty much sums up what I think.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/1051/defensewrapper.jsp?PID=1051-350&CID=1051-061103D

Who's Lying?
<snip>

No one doubts that Saddam <snip>

Clear enough, you trust Saddam more then you trust GW. Hmm, why am I not surprised...

This is a joke right?

on January 27th of this year, Hans Blix reiterated the inventory of weapons that - after five years - Hussein still hadn't accounted for: 8,500 liters of anthrax, 1,000 tons of poison gas, 6,500 bombs capable of delivering chemical weapons, and "thousands" of poison gas rockets. Was Blix lying about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction?

There were not allot doubting that he still had them .... just how to go about disarming the country was the real issue.

As I stated before.

No one doubts that Saddam *had* WMD and WMD Programs in the 80's and 90's. What people are doubting is whether or not he had them when the Administration was making its case for war last year and this year. The casus belli that pushed this country over the brink to commission of troops. *That* is what people are doubting. That is where people are saying that the threat of Saddam was overstated at best, or falsified at worse.

Not to mention the last 2/3 of my post that you cropped out and neglected with regard to the falsification of information given to the american public and the worldwide community with regard to building the case for war.

I have a problem with the administration parrotting information that turned out to be completely false. A proper examination of the data would have shown from the get go that it was false. And in the case of the Uranium purchase, it was known before Bush went with his State of the Union address that it was false. Yet he stated it anyways, and did a tiny retraction later on, after the effect had been dispersed throughout the american populace.

I do not like being lied to or manipulated by the politicians in this country. If we're going to go to war, give the honest reasons why. Not reasons that are politically expedient. See Paul Wolfowitz's comments in Vanity Fair with regard to the WMD issue.

I also find it funny, with regard to Paul Wolfowitz's comments in Vanity Fair earlier this month, that it's coming out from the highest members of the administration that the main reason WMDs were parrotted was because that was what the american public would get behind. That's the only way they could get us to support this war. That, and rightly so, the american public would not support a war in Iraq to simply get rid of an awful dictator. There had to be something that made all those "Soccer moms" quake in their boots in the suburbs and all of middle america cry out for blood. What fit the bill? WMDs.

I also find it funny that it's now coming out that the CIA stated in almost every case that they presented to the president that their evidence with regard to WMDs in Iraq was tenuous at best, murky and stretchable at worst. For instance, the CIA believed Saddam could have a nuclear weapon within a decade. And they put in a worst case scenario that he could, though highly unlikely, have a nuke within a year. What did Bush stress in his State of the Union Address merely three days later? That Iraq would undoubtedly have a Nuke within a year.

There are many other instances of stretching the truth, or running with the worst case scenario from this administration that have come out. It's in all the news. So I'm sorry, but I cannot just roll over and say "Well we didn't find any WMDs, but it doesn't matter. We freed a people from an awful dictator." The Weapons of Mass Destruction were the casus belli for us going to war with Iraq. They were the casus belli for over 100 soldiers losing their lives, and many more now that we're policing that country. So if there is no pushing point, there is no reason for war. No reason for war means we got dragged into this as a citizenry.

As I told Vince before, I want to see the Weapons of Mass Destruction we were all told about and convinced would be there to do us great harm. Even before the war began, there were doubters. I happened to be one of them, and frankly stated that I hoped we'd find WMDs soon after the war because we'd need them to re-establish our credibility on the world stage. I seem to recall getting laughed at about that one. "Problems finding WMDs? Pshaw! Pfft! Laughable! Outrageous!" and so forth and so on. So now it's been two months and nothing.

Tony Blair, one of the few allies of this administration in the world, is getting roasted at home over this, and what do we do? We have Rumsfeld go out and state that the weapons could have been destroyed before the war began, thus negating the whole reason to go to war in the first place in many people's eyes. "Well if the weapons had been destroyed, we didn't have to go." yadda yadda yadda. Not that I believe that particular train of thought because it's a woulda/coulda/shoulda situation, but many people do and are now parrotting it. It's one reason why Tony Blair is having a tough time in Britain now.

And now you have people like CNN and others calling for a potential impeachment of the president if it turns out these WMDs never existed. Which frankly I think is going a tad too far at this stage of the game. If we're a year in and still no Weapons, then sure, maybe. But even then, I have a hard time believing that this was more a deception on the administration's part rather than faulty evidence from the CIA that they misinterpreted to fit their goals. I don't believe the latter is an impeachable offense, but certainly a lack of judgement for the good of the american people.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

* Natoma cues the quotes presented on earlier pages by moi

Then you can cue up the respnonses already made to those comments.

 

[Natoma]

You've said nothing to refute the words that the Bush Administration have trotted out.

"He's got a gun!"

Natoma's Response: What? Where's the gun? We killed him because you said we had a gun. Where is it?

Joe's Reponse: Well, he didn't actually say that he had a gun. He said that he might have the means to build a gun. I mean, I'm not grabbing for straws here or anything at all.



Sir I have found you an argument with regard to the Weapons of Mass Disappearance, but I am most certainly not obliged to find you an understanding.