Got WMD?

[Sabastian]

Hans Blix was lying too...... this year. Along with a wide variety of intelligence that suggested that he did still have them.

But the WMD argument is getting stupid. We don't know what Saddam has done with these weapons only know that he did have them and sense he failed to cooperate all together over the course of 12 years no less it was about time someone did something about the regime anyhow. The details you point out are not really a big deal ether and don't represent necessarily any deception on behalf of the US governments administration.

I think you ought to sit back and relax, really it has only been a couple of months sense the US came to be in control of the situation. No one said it would be a small task to find these weapons in a country that is roughly the size of Texas.

In the end though this WMD hunt search won’t even matter much though. There were plenty of other legitimate reasons for the regime to be removed in my opinion and although I realize that Bush never used these arguments much (prolly because he clearly did believe that Saddam did have WMD BTW.) the fact of the matter is even if they don’t find WMD (of which I believe they will.) the country of Iraq is far better off and so is the US not to mention Saddam’s neighbors. No one is really upset that Saddam is gone AFAIK. All of this WMD stuff even if they don’t find any except for a massive blemish on US agencies that do this work and that is too bad but I don’t think I would blame the current administration for that. IIRC I saw a Canadian intelligence agent on TV basically saying that there are no intelligence agencies that would deny the fact that they knew Iraq definitely did have WMD… oh I would like to have that one to link up.

 

[Natoma]

Where did Hans Blix lie? Honestly. I haven't heard about this one. I'd like to know.

And btw, I agree with you with regard to there being tons of other legitimate reasons for us to go to war. But those reasons were not the reasons that the administration used to get us into this war. That is what I'm arguing.

Not that Saddam wasn't a fucking bastard. Not that he's not a lying cheat who deserves a bullet in his skull. Frankly the crap I've read that he and his cronies did to the people of Iraq simply make me heave. But there are many other regimes around the world that practice those same brutalities. Why haven't we attacked them to get rid of their brutal regimes and free their people? No WMD, No Oil.

That is why I said that I believe the reasons the american public was brought into this war were disingenous in terms of severity. I don't appreciate that.

 

[Sabastian]

Where did Hans Blix lie? Honestly. I haven't heard about this one. I'd like to know.

Ok that was entirely a sarcastic statement but clearly Blix thought that Iraq should come clean yet.

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

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?

And btw, I agree with you with regard to there being tons of other legitimate reasons for us to go to war. But those reasons were not the reasons that the administration used to get us into this war. That is what I'm arguing.

So if Bush had used the liberation of the Iraqi people you would support him now.(heh, I think he did use that.)

Not that Saddam wasn't a fucking bastard. Not that he's not a lying cheat who deserves a bullet in his skull. Frankly the crap I've read that he and his cronies did to the people of Iraq simply make me heave. But there are many other regimes around the world that practice those same brutalities. Why haven't we attacked them to get rid of their brutal regimes and free their people? No WMD, No Oil.

Make a list of these countries would you? Do they have potential links to terrorism? Have the UN been investigating them for 12 years for WMD? Oh I think that criteria alone would make your list quite short.

That is why I said that I believe the reasons the american public was brought into this war were disingenous in terms of severity. I don't appreciate that.

yeah never mind all the other reasons why it was good to remove Saddam it's all about oil .....

EDIT: argh, sucked into another political debate, oh I am a sucker. have to go to work. Have fun guys.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

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

As I explained before, "refutation" of his words is not needed. We all KNOW Bush claims that WMD is the reason for going to war.

"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.

Unfortunately, a completely irrelevant analogy. Here's another irrelevant analogy in the completely opposite direction:

"I've got a gun, and I'm coming to kill you"

Joe's response: I believe you, so I'm going to get rid of you before you get me.

Natoma's Response: First there's silence, and then he's killed.


Hopefully, Natoma, you recognize the relevant analogy is between those two extremes.

 

[Natoma]

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

As I explained before, "refutation" of his words is not needed. We all KNOW Bush claims that WMD is the reason for going to war.

I'm glad we're on the same page then. My point now is, since we all know Bush claims that WMD is the reason for going to war with Iraq, if no WMD are found, would you agree that the major cause used to push the american citizenry toward this war would be then unsupportable? Either because of bad intelligence, blinders on the people who wanted to see only what they wanted to see, or deliberate falsification of certain portions of evidence in order to build a stronger case.

That irregardless of the other good things that came about because of getting rid of Saddam Hussein, we'd have been sold a can of worms due to the fact that the politically expedient reason for going to war, WMD, turned out to be false?

I only bring this up because as I said before the war, I had my sneaking suspicions with regard to our Intelligence community. The uranium purchase and aluminum tubes were what caused me to second guess them. Now that it's been 2 months after the war, and still no WMD, it seems that this possibility is becoming ever stronger.

"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.

Unfortunately, a completely irrelevant analogy. Here's another irrelevant analogy in the completely opposite direction:

"I've got a gun, and I'm coming to kill you"

Joe's response: I believe you, so I'm going to get rid of you before you get me.

Natoma's Response: First there's silence, and then he's killed.


Hopefully, Natoma, you recognize the relevant analogy is between those two extremes.

In this particular case, I don't recall Saddam ever stating that he had WMD, or the means to build WMD, [EDIT]in the year or so leading up to Gulf War II[/EDIT]. Though lets be honest here. *I* could build a WMD with some fertilizer and some household chemicals, in middle america. So the means to do so are not necessarily a precursor to war.

However, I do remember Bush using WMD as the reason to go to war, which you agreed with. Stating that Saddam had hundreds of tons of chem-bio agent, not to mention material to build a nuke. So in essence Bush was saying "He's got a gun! Let's kill him!"

Remember, this war was trotted out as a pre-emptive war. But if no WMD are found, then, as I said in my analogy, what is there to pre-empt?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I'm glad we're on the same page then. My point now is, since we all know Bush claims that WMD is the reason for going to war with Iraq, if no WMD are found, would you agree that the major cause used to push the american citizenry toward this war would be then unsupportable?

No. Because as I said in my very first post on this matter:

Doesn't matter though, which is why I'm continualkly puzzled by discussions like this.

We don't need "time" to tell everyone that the UN Security Counsel unamimously believed and understood Iraq to have WMD. History tells us that....by virture of the fact that Iraq could not acceptably account for them by anyone's standard. (See UN resolution 1441).

Despite the left's rhetoric, whether or not we do find them has no bearing on the justification of the war. Whetever your feeling on the justification of the war (for or against), actually FINDING the WMD shouldn't change anything. If you think the war wasn't justified, finding WMD shouldn't change your view.

We went to war because EVERYONE, those both pro and anti-war, agreed that Iraq was not forthcoming about their WMD. There was never any disagreement, not with the U.N., the former Clinton Administration, or this administration, that IRAQ "had weapons of mass destruction."

The only disagreement was what to do about it.

That irregardless of the other good things that came about because of getting rid of Saddam Hussein, we'd have been sold a can of worms due to the fact that the politically expedient reason for going to war, WMD, turned out to be false?

First: not finding WMD doesn't make the premise false. The premise is: We (EVERYONE, U.N. included) believes he has WMD. Sadam was not cooperating with inspectors so we could verify the dismantling of his WMD and WMD programs.

Wheteher or not we find WMD doesn't change the premise of going to war!

In this particular case, I don't recall Saddam ever stating that he had WMD, or the means to build WMD.

I'll try and find the reference, but I thought it was common knowledge that Iraq admitted to having WMD in the mid 90's (certain chemical / bilogical agents.)

Though lets be honest here. *I* could build a WMD with some fertilizer and some household chemicals, in middle america. So the means to do so are not necessarily a precursor to war.

Sigh....I am being honest here: having the means to do so while violating countless U.N. resolutions to the contrary is a precursor to war.

However, I do remember Bush using WMD as the reason to go to war, which you agreed with.

Correct.

Stating that Saddam had hundreds of tons of chem-bio agent, not to mention material to build a nuke. So in essence Bush was saying "He's got a gun! Let's kill him!"

Incorrect.

1) IRAQ had documented it's ownership of ceratin WMDs.
2) IRAQ was not fully cooperating with UN inspectors

In other words, in essence, Bush said "Everyone believes he has a gun, and he is not doing much to convince us that he's serious about getting rid of it, even though we all agreed that he must get rid of it.,"

Remember, this war was trotted out as a pre-emptive war. But if no WMD are found, then, as I said in my analogy, what is there to pre-empt?

Why do you continually fail to not address the fact that it's not just the fact that he had/has WMD that is the cause for "pre-emption." It's that combined with the fact that he was not cooperative with the verification process.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Let me re-emphasize something from my first post, that might make my position perfectly clear to you:

If you think the war wasn't justified, finding WMD shouldn't change your view.

In other words, I would NOT see "finding" WMD as some "victory" for the administration. (It would be a victory for intelligence though.)
In the same way, NOT finding them is not some failure for the administration.

 

[Xspringe]

I do not believe whether they find WMDs is relevant for this discussion. What IS relevant is the possibility that the administration was involved in presenting the public with (intentionally) inaccurate information and/or pressured the intelligence agencies to "optimize" their reports in favor of the administrations' political goals.

If this is true, it will probably become one of the biggest scandals in USA/UK history. To be honest I wouldn't be surprised if it were true, the question is whether the investigations into this matter will be thorough enough...

 

[V3]

In other words, I would NOT see "finding" WMD as some "victory" for the administration. (It would be a victory for intelligence though.)
In the same way, NOT finding them is not some failure for the administration.

WTH ?? Did I read this right ???

Not finding that WMD is a victory for the terrorist. This war would be a failure.

I do not believe whether they find WMDs is relevant for this discussion. What IS relevant is the possibility that the administration was involved in presenting the public with (intentionally) inaccurate information and/or pressured the intelligence agencies to "optimize" their reports in favor of the administrations' political goals.

It doesn't matter much if the administration mislead the public, that's not the important issue here. The issue here is, if the administration is correct about Iraq's WMD and couldn't find the WMD in Iraq, that would be a disaster.

 

[Xmas]

Make a list of these countries would you? Do they have potential links to terrorism? Have the UN been investigating them for 12 years for WMD? Oh I think that criteria alone would make your list quite short.

Any country might have potential links to terrorism. And some already have WMD.

 

[Sabastian]

In other words, in essence, Bush said "Everyone believes he has a gun, and he is not doing much to convince us that he's serious about getting rid of it, even though we all agreed that he must get rid of it.,"

It is even a worse scenario then that.

ADD: He has used the gun before.
He is surrounded by people whom would like him to use the gun again.
He is surrounded by people whom would take the gun from him to use it.....

The analogy gets even more complex when you start adding other characters.

 

[Sabastian]

Make a list of these countries would you? Do they have potential links to terrorism? Have the UN been investigating them for 12 years for WMD? Oh I think that criteria alone would make your list quite short.

Any country might have potential links to terrorism. And some already have WMD.

your list of some get considerably smaller when you add the UN weapons inspection of 12 years criteria, of which you conveniently ignored to add. So many turns into some and your some turns into one, namely Iraq.

 

[Xmas]

your list of some get considerably smaller when you add the UN weapons inspection of 12 years criteria, of which you conveniently ignored to add. So many turns into some and your some turns into one, namely Iraq.

Those who already have WMD don't need UN weapons inspection to search WMD because they openly state that they have WMD. Although it would be good if in some countries the UN would have an eye on weapons development.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

In other words, I would NOT see "finding" WMD as some "victory" for the administration. (It would be a victory for intelligence though.)
In the same way, NOT finding them is not some failure for the administration.

WTH ?? Did I read this right ???

Yup. You read it right.

Not finding that WMD is a victory for the terrorist. This war would be a failure.

Perhaps you misunderstand what I'm saying. As I've said earlier, I do (as the administration does) want the WMD found (or evidence that proves they have been destroyed). Because if we don't find them, that means "they are still out there" and that's a "bad thing."

Going to war was the best way to try and find the WMD.

When I said finding them would not a "victory for the administration", I mean it in the context of Natoma's arguments. That is, "justification for going to war." Whether or not we find the weapons doesn't change the arguments for justification of the war.

I do not believe whether they find WMDs is relevant for this discussion. What IS relevant is the possibility that the administration was involved in presenting the public with (intentionally) inaccurate information and/or pressured the intelligence agencies to "optimize" their reports in favor of the administrations' political goals.

Absolutely.

V3: the key words are relevant to this discussion. (See below.)

It doesn't matter much if the administration mislead the public, that's not the important issue here. The issue here is, if the administration is correct about Iraq's WMD and couldn't find the WMD in Iraq, that would be a disaster

I believe that both issues are important. The two issues being:

1. Whether or not the public ws intentionally mislead
2. Whether or not we find the WMD.

Issue 1 is what is "what is being discussed" in this thread. That's just Natoma trying to trash Bush again. It is however, a valid question to raise. Though Natoma is trying to link the actual finding of the WMD to that issue, which is irrelevant.

I agree that issue 2 (like you are saying) is what is important.

 

[Sabastian]

your list of some get considerably smaller when you add the UN weapons inspection of 12 years criteria, of which you conveniently ignored to add. So many turns into some and your some turns into one, namely Iraq.

Those who already have WMD don't need UN weapons inspection to search WMD because they openly state that they have WMD. Although it would be good if in some countries the UN would have an eye on weapons development.

Too put things in a better perspective.... Why did Saddam put his country through 12 years of UN sanctions if he really didn't have anything to hide? Why didn't he simply just cooperate and end the inspections and the trade sanctions?

 

[Xmas]

Too put things in a better perspective.... Why did Saddam put his country through 12 years of UN sanctions if he really didn't have anything to hide? Why didn't he simply just cooperate and end the inspections and the trade sanctions?

I don't know. Ask Saddam, maybe he really didn't have much to hide.
But that was not the issue I was discussing.

You said:

Make a list of these countries would you? Do they have potential links to terrorism? Have the UN been investigating them for 12 years for WMD? Oh I think that criteria alone would make your list quite short.

I think that criteria is irrelevant as there are many more countries where the UN should investigate - but doesn't, for different reasons - especially those who are technologically advanced and those who already have WMD.
See,
"the US have potential links to terrorism, and I believe they're developing 'illegal' (in view of the UN) WMD. So let's send weapons inspectors there, and if they don't find anything, that's because the US is hiding everything."
I could make that argument with a lot of countries.

 

[Natoma]

I see no difference between the administration misleading the public and there being no WMD in Iraq. If they said there are WMD in Iraq, and that is why we went in there, i.e. started a war, then there had better be WMD in Iraq. And if there are none, someone's heads need to roll. Be it the president, his chiefs of staff, those in the intelligence community, or whoever.

If no WMD are found, someone either lied, misinterpreted badly, or only saw what they wanted to see. They are completely intertwined.

 

[pascal]

Interresting :http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,977916,00.html

Iraqi mobile labs nothing to do with germ warfare, report finds

.....


Instead, a British scientist and biological weapons expert, who has examined the trailers in Iraq, told The Observer last week: 'They are not mobile germ warfare laboratories. You could not use them for making biological weapons. They do not even look like them. They are exactly what the Iraqis said they were - facilities for the production of hydrogen gas to fill balloons.'

......

The revelation that the mobile labs were to produce hydrogen for artillery balloons will also cause discomfort for the British authorities because the Iraqi army's original system was sold to it by the British company, Marconi Command & Control.

balloons with British (not French or Russia) technology