NationStates Jolt Archive

Yep. Without press release. Without fanfare. Without much of anything, the teams looking for banned weapons packed up and left Iraq last month. (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050112/ts_nm/iraq_weapons_dc_2)


The search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (news - web sites) ended last month, nearly two years after President Bush (news - web sites) sent troops to disarm Saddam Hussein (news - web sites), The Washington Post reported on Wednesday.

Officials who served with the group charged with hunting banned weapons said the violence in Iraq, coupled with a lack of new information, led them to fold up the effort shortly before Christmas, the newspaper reported.

Charles Duelfer, the CIA (news - web sites) special adviser who led the hunt, has returned home, and analysts serving in his Iraq Survey Group (ISG) have returned to CIA headquarters in Virginia, the report said, citing unnamed intelligence officials.

The Post said the findings of an interim report that Duelfer submitted to Congress in September will stand as the ISG's final conclusions, according to a senior intelligence official.

The report concluded that Iraq had no stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons and its nuclear program had decayed before last year's U.S.-led invasion, in findings contrary to prewar assertions of the Bush administration.


Now, we could discuss the fact that they are plannign to run an election in a couple of weks in a country where they had to pull their inspection teams partially because of the increased violence.... but I'd rather not.

But it's now official. There never were any WMD in Iraq. It was not threat - to anyone.

Of course, Powell always knew that. Hell, he said it himself shortly before 9-11 (http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/933.htm)

He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place

But still the war went on.

To refresh all our memories about what was said about the need to go to war quickly against Saddam:


Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." - Dick Cheney Speech to VFW National Convention, Aug. 26, 2002

"there will always be some uncertainty" in determining how close Iraq may be to obtaining a nuclear weapon but said, "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." - Condoleeza Rice to CNN, Sept. 8, 2002

Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons" -. George W. Bush Speech to U.N. General Assembly, Sept. 12, 2002

If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world." - Ari Fleischer Press Briefing, Dec. 2, 2002

We know for a fact that there are weapons there." - Ari Fleischer Press Briefing, Jan. 9, 2003

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. " - George W. Bush State of the Union Address, Jan. 28, 2003

We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more. " - Colin Powell Remarks to U.N. Security Council, Feb. 5, 2003

We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have. " - George W. Bush Radio Address, Feb. 8, 2003

So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad?... I think our judgment has to be clearly not. " - Colin Powell Remarks to U.N. Security Council, March 7, 2003

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." - George W. Bush Address to the Nation, March 17, 2003

Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly... all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes." - Ari Fleisher Press Briefing, March 21, 2003

There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. And... as this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them." - Gen. Tommy Franks Press Conference, March 22, 2003

I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction." - Defense Policy Board member Kenneth Adelman The Washington Post" -, Page A27, March 23, 2003

One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites." - Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark Press Briefing, March 22, 2003

"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." - Donald Rumsfeld ABC Interview, March 30, 2003

Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of mass destruction U.S. forces find -- and there will be plenty." - Neo-con scholar Robert Kagan The Washington Post" - op-ed, Apr. 9, 2003

I think you have always heard, and you continue to hear from officials, a measure of high confidence that, indeed, the weapons of mass destruction will be found." - Ari Fleischer Press Briefing, Apr. 10, 2003

We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them." - George W. Bush NBC Interview, Apr. 24, 2003

There are people who in large measure have information that we need... so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country." - Donald Rumsfeld Press Briefing, Apr. 25, 2003

We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so." - George W. Bush Remarks to Reporters, May 3, 2003

I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now. " - Colin Powell Remarks to Reporters, May 4, 2003

We never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country." - Donald Rumsfeld Fox News Interview, May 4, 2003

I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein -- because he had a weapons program. " - George W. Bush Remarks to Reporters, May 6, 2003

U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and find" weapons of mass destruction." - Condoleeza Rice Reuters Interview, May 12, 2003

I just don't know whether it was all destroyed years ago -- I mean, there's no question that there were chemical weapons years ago -- whether they were destroyed right before the war, (or) whether they're still hidden. " - Maj. Gen. David Petraeus, Commander 101st Airborne Press Briefing, May 13, 2003

Before the war, there's no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical. I expected them to be found. I still expect them to be found." - Gen. Michael Hagee, Commandant of the Marine Corps Interview with Reporters, May 21, 2003

Given time, given the number of prisoners now that we're interrogating, I'm confident that we're going to find weapons of mass destruction." - Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff NBC Today Show" - interview, May 26, 2003

They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer." -Donald Rumsfeld Remarks to Council on Foreign Relations, May 27, 2003

For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on." - Paul Wolfowitz Vanity Fair" - interview, May 28, 2003

It was a surprise to me then -- it remains a surprise to me now -- that we have not uncovered weapons, as you say, in some of the forward dispersal sites. Believe me, it's not for lack of trying. We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they're simply not there." - Lt. Gen. James Conway, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force Press Interview, May 30, 2003

I don't think that's the real reason Bush went there. And I don't think we'll ever know what the real reason was.

I *do* think that terrorists will soon use some sort of WMD. After all, we still have no idea who brought the anthrax. And if a small cult in Japan can make them (nerve gas), then so can virtually any other small group.

You don't need a nation state to do those things. No big factories and no big labs. Just a basement and some glassware and a willingness to potentially die while making the stuff.

Will be interesting seeing a neocon trying to defend this.

The next step now I think is looking at what bogus information they did have which made them beleive so strongly that there were such WMD, and how that information was obtained or whether it was fabricated.

I *do* think that terrorists will soon use some sort of WMD. After all, we still have no idea who brought the anthrax. And if a small cult in Japan can make them (nerve gas), then so can virtually any other small group.

How is this relevant to Iraq?

Will be interesting seeing a neocon trying to defend this.

The next step now I think is looking at what bogus information they did have which made them beleive so strongly that there were such WMD, and how that information was obtained or whether it was fabricated.

We would have to ask George Tenet, and he's not talking, is he?

How is this relevant to Iraq?

Fass, I don't see Iraq as being the only issue on the plate for the US.

The US, as others here may have noted (Cassini Belt, for example), tends to see everything as connected, whereas most Europeans see each and every issue as separate and distinct and completely unrelated.

I see Islamic extremism, fanned by the flames of prior US sponsorship of jihadis in Afghanistan in the 1980s and US foreign policy (and even encouragement by France, especially in their assistance to Islamic countries in acquiring nuclear technology) as being one issue.

The fact that we're stuck in the mud in Iraq is one issue. But it's a serious misstep in the overall picture.

not with a bang, but with a whimper...

Fass, I don't see Iraq as being the only issue on the plate for the US.

The US, as others here may have noted (Cassini Belt, for example), tends to see everything as connected, whereas most Europeans see each and every issue as separate and distinct and completely unrelated.

I see Islamic extremism, fanned by the flames of prior US sponsorship of jihadis in Afghanistan in the 1980s and US foreign policy (and even encouragement by France, especially in their assistance to Islamic countries in acquiring nuclear technology) as being one issue.

The fact that we're stuck in the mud in Iraq is one issue. But it's a serious misstep in the overall picture.

You're not answering the question. What does terrorism have to do with Iraq?

Read the last line in my last post - IT WAS A SERIOUS MISSTEP.

Capiche?

Read the last line in my last post - IT WAS A SERIOUS MISSTEP.

Capiche?

It's spelled "capisce".

And, no. Why are you mentioning terrorism in a thread about Iraq?

Let's try a longer explanation:

You have to admit that any President post-911 would have to formulate a wide ranging policy to address the environment that allows terrorists to grow and to obtain money, training, and weapons (including WMD).

They have to come up with a plan.

For some reason, Iraq became a part of that plan (don't ask me why - I can't fathom it myself).

So they're running a larger plan. Unlike non-US people, they don't see things as being disconnected isolated events.

Wonder why the US doesn't like France? It's because they see them connected at a very broad level to countries and groups that the US is having trouble with.

I almost thought that the French passed that headscarf ban just to placate the US in some warped way.

I don't think that's the real reason Bush went there. And I don't think we'll ever know what the real reason was.

I *do* think that terrorists will soon use some sort of WMD. After all, we still have no idea who brought the anthrax. And if a small cult in Japan can make them (nerve gas), then so can virtually any other small group.

You don't need a nation state to do those things. No big factories and no big labs. Just a basement and some glassware and a willingness to potentially die while making the stuff.

I agree on much of this, although the number of people who seem not to care at all why this war was sold to the people as part of the War on Terror, as a clear and present danger to the country, and as an immediate threat that needed addressing still rather surprises me.

I'm sure that there are many families who have lost children, husbands, wives, etc. who would like to know the reason.

They'll never get it, of course - which is a pity - and more's the pity is the people who will continue to take everything that was said at the time as being just honest, well meant errors in judgement.

I expect politicians to lie. I just like to call them on the obvious ones that they think the average person is too stupid to notice....

Let's try a longer explanation:

You have to admit that any President post-911 would have to formulate a wide ranging policy to address the environment that allows terrorists to grow and to obtain money, training, and weapons (including WMD).

They have to come up with a plan.

For some reason, Iraq became a part of that plan (don't ask me why - I can't fathom it myself).

So they're running a larger plan. Unlike non-US people, they don't see things as being disconnected isolated events.

Wonder why the US doesn't like France? It's because they see them connected at a very broad level to countries and groups that the US is having trouble with.

I almost thought that the French passed that headscarf ban just to placate the US in some warped way.

Non-US people are very much aware of connected events - that's why we weren't the least bit surprised that 9/11 happened.

You're still not explaining why you're pulling terrorism into a thread about Iraq. How is Iraq connected to terrorism aimed at the US?

You're still not explaining why you're pulling terrorism into a thread about Iraq. How is Iraq connected to terrorism aimed at the US?

Except as a trigger for more terrorism aimed at the US you mean? ;)

I think the answer to why Iraq was invaded is classified. The WMD is a smokescreen.

And I don't think it's because of Bush's dad, or any reason posited by Michael Moore.

Rumsfeld and Cheney come from a Defense background that is heavily permeated by game theorists. There's a game that's being run here.

What the game is and how it's supposed to run is not clear. But it's clear to me that the intent is to focus the attention of anyone who hates the US on Iraq. Why that country, and not some other (hey, why not Pakistan - they actually have nuclear weapons and are Islamic, and have a lot of anti-US people in their northern provinces).

But it's definitely a game that's been hinted at. Does anyone remember Rumsfeld's statements in the immediate period prior to the Afghanistan invasion, where he stated that we will never be told what the strategy will be, or even where we succeed (or fail) - that he intends to keep the war secret.

He's doing it. You may think that you have a picture of what's going on. But the picture isn't what you think it is. The Pentagon is getting better and better at deception.

Does Rummy care if a country gets ruined in the process? No.

Is he going to tell the American people the overall plan? No.

How many independent reporters have a real chance at figuring out the real plan (the overall plan - not just Iraq)? None.

Every reporter who covered the first Gulf War was completely fooled by the Pentagon at that time. Not one figured out the end run, even ones who were right on the spot where it was occurring.

Do you think these people are going to figure it out? No.

I remember a pro-war guy saying a while back 'You just wait til about march next year when we start rolling out the evidence!!' 'next march' was 10 months ago...

I remember a pro-war guy saying a while back 'You just wait til about march next year when we start rolling out the evidence!!' 'next march' was 10 months ago...


Next March is never gonna happen now.......

Unless, of course, they decide that the WMD got moved and hidden.... say, in Syria.....

I remember a pro-war guy saying a while back 'You just wait til about march next year when we start rolling out the evidence!!' 'next march' was 10 months ago...
Clearly that particular pro-war guy has personally hidden the evidence- just to make the anti-war guys look better. Thats just how nice he is.

Every reporter who covered the first Gulf War was completely fooled by the Pentagon at that time. Not one figured out the end run, even ones who were right on the spot where it was occurring.

Do you think these people are going to figure it out? No.

Hey, every reporter in the first Gulf War couldn't even figure out that the Pentagon was lying about the Patriots shooting down Scuds...

Their lack of insight as a rule is not terribly suprising, however sometimes they still manage to get it right - just usually far too late for it to matter.

Hey, every reporter in the first Gulf War couldn't even figure out that the Pentagon was lying about the Patriots shooting down Scuds...

Their lack of insight as a rule is not terribly suprising, however sometimes they still manage to get it right - just usually far too late for it to matter.

I just don't think the reporters know at this point.

I think the answer to why Iraq was invaded is classified. The WMD is a smokescreen.

And I don't think it's because of Bush's dad, or any reason posited by Michael Moore.

Rumsfeld and Cheney come from a Defense background that is heavily permeated by game theorists. There's a game that's being run here.

What the game is and how it's supposed to run is not clear. But it's clear to me that the intent is to focus the attention of anyone who hates the US on Iraq. Why that country, and not some other (hey, why not Pakistan - they actually have nuclear weapons and are Islamic, and have a lot of anti-US people in their northern provinces).

But it's definitely a game that's been hinted at. Does anyone remember Rumsfeld's statements in the immediate period prior to the Afghanistan invasion, where he stated that we will never be told what the strategy will be, or even where we succeed (or fail) - that he intends to keep the war secret.

He's doing it. You may think that you have a picture of what's going on. But the picture isn't what you think it is. The Pentagon is getting better and better at deception.

Does Rummy care if a country gets ruined in the process? No.

Is he going to tell the American people the overall plan? No.For some of us the plan is transparent. Make excuses all you want, Claim some larger purpose that still is unknown. If it lets you sleep at night by believing that the obvious corporate, opportunistic plundering of another nation is actually part of a genuine morally forthright effort by our government to do the right thing, good for you.

I wish I could deceive myself similarly into believing that the deaths of my fellow countryman and countless others was for more than money and power.

How many independent reporters have a real chance at figuring out the real plan (the overall plan - not just Iraq)? None.

Every reporter who covered the first Gulf War was completely fooled by the Pentagon at that time. Not one figured out the end run, even ones who were right on the spot where it was occurring.

Do you think these people are going to figure it out? No.Just like you, most don't want to know the truth. To acknowledge it would destroy their world. It would mean they'd have to look at themselves in the mirror and see their complicity, that they're not part of a nation of guys in white hats with the best of intentions in every situation, that indeed they took part in something horribly wrong.

Fox and most other news media still refer to the deaths of soldiers in Iraq as deaths in the war on terror. That in itself should acknowledge our national denial.

The Bush Spin:


"Yes the world can now say, that thanks to the brave sacrifice of the men and women of the Coalition and US Forces, Iraq now has no Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Hey is that good or what? Do you think I could get a job as spin meister somewhere?

Hmm. I don't think we're wearing the white hats.

But I don't think that some BBC reporter knows what's going on any more than Bush does.

And as for corporate plundering of another nation - there's not 100 billion dollars per year of oil in Iraq. So if it's corporate plundering of Iraq, it's got a negative balance. Which is why I don't buy that as a theory either.

And as for corporate plundering of another nation - there's not 100 billion dollars per year of oil in Iraq. So if it's corporate plundering of Iraq, it's got a negative balance. Which is why I don't buy that as a theory either.

I personally think it was more strategic than for the oil.. however to be fair, they never expected do come across as many problems as they are having.. remember, they thought they would be greeted with cheers and the citizens of Iraq throwing flowers at their feet. They got it wrong in more ways than one. I'm sure Bush & co never expected to have to spend the money they have on this little misguided adventure.

I *do* think that terrorists will soon use some sort of WMD. After all, we still have no idea who brought the anthrax. And if a small cult in Japan can make them (nerve gas), then so can virtually any other small group.

You don't need a nation state to do those things. No big factories and no big labs. Just a basement and some glassware and a willingness to potentially die while making the stuff.


I just wanna give you a little psudeo-support.
And throw a stick at you at the same time.

To start, chemical weapons are easier to make then that.
I've personally played with the stuff, specificly Chlorine gas, Phosphogene, mustard Agent, and several types of 'Tear gas'.
It's easy to make. I'll give you a clue, ever read the lables of say, Chlorinated bleach, Amonia, or toilet bowl cleaner? Notices where it says "Do not mix with such-and-such a product"? Well, that's because when they combine they create these chemical weapons. Some, such as when you create Chlorine, only create the liquid, and you have to make it a gas yourself, others, like Phosphogene, start evaporating pretty quickly.
I'm not going to go into detail about what you combine with what to make what, but I'll say one last thing, almost everything except VX agent, and some/most of the Bromide based toxins can be made using household cleaners.

If someone is that paranoid about a chemical weapon attack, then they should avoid grocery stores and anywhere that sells household and industrial cleaners.

Also, why are chemical weapons called "WMD"? They're certianly not in the same destruction (in both terms of life and material) as biological or nuclear weapons, they're easily countered, cheap, no where near as effective as the same ammount of a biological weapon, or a good conventional bomb in killing people and destroying things.

Besides, Iraq has no WMD because it used all it's gas on Iran.
Those two have been fighting longer then then US, England, France, Germany, even Rome, have been around.

<snip>
Besides, Iraq has no WMD because it used all it's gas on Iran.
Those two have been fighting longer then then US, England, France, Germany, even Rome, have been around.

Making VX with a decent purity is harder than most people think.
But, a good organic chemist with the recipe and some raw material could do it. I'm saying that it's not that hard - that it could be done in someone's basement.

I think that Iraq used its chemicals on Iran, and on Kurds. There's no disputing that. Also, a lot of rounds probably aged to the point where they were no longer usable. Some were discarded in the desert.

Don't know why chemicals are grouped into the label "WMD". Maybe it's because a liter of VX can kill a lot of people in a confined space.

Biologicals are obviously easy to make as well. You'll notice we still have no idea who the anthrax person was - they haven't caught anyone yet. I bet that whoever it was made it by themselves. A one man job.

It doesn't matter. Bush showed that he stopped taking the WMD search seriously when he had that slide show of him looking for WMD in the White House.

Vittos, you mean you don't have it?

Vittos, you mean you don't have it?

I did at one point, but I shipped all of them to Syria and Yemen.

Well, you really should have shipped it to Miami. If they can get tons of cocaine through the Port of Miami, surely there would be no trouble sending the stuff to West Palm Beach.

Sure, storage rental would be pricey...

Well, you really should have shipped it to Miami. If they can get tons of cocaine through the Port of Miami, surely there would be no trouble sending the stuff to West Palm Beach.

Sure, storage rental would be pricey...

Dammit, you are right, Castro would have paid so much for those things.

Tons of illegal drugs make it through the Port of Miami each year. If they wanted to bring something into the US, they sure as hell can bring it through there.

Oh well thats funny.

What I want to know is what is going to happen if the insurgents win and drive out the Americans or a Democratic government is elected in a few weeks and the americans leave, and the new Iraqi government is like "We must defend Iraqi soveriegnty by building a nuclear weapons program!" What's American going to do then, invade again and overthrow a democratically elected government and get dragged into a second quagmire? Its not like Israel is going to get rid of its nukes any time soon, and with Iraq's old foe Iran working hard at developing them, it would be stupid for Iraq not to try to develop nuclear arms.

Making VX with a decent purity is harder than most people think.
But, a good organic chemist with the recipe and some raw material could do it. I'm saying that it's not that hard - that it could be done in someone's basement.

I think that Iraq used its chemicals on Iran, and on Kurds. There's no disputing that. Also, a lot of rounds probably aged to the point where they were no longer usable. Some were discarded in the desert.

Don't know why chemicals are grouped into the label "WMD". Maybe it's because a liter of VX can kill a lot of people in a confined space.

Biologicals are obviously easy to make as well. You'll notice we still have no idea who the anthrax person was - they haven't caught anyone yet. I bet that whoever it was made it by themselves. A one man job.


I don't think I got my point.
I was supporting what you said about them being easy to make in a basement. Hell, I did it in my back yard.

Um, VX can't be made with anything less then those wonderfully expensive industrial chemicals, and lots of them.
I'll give you an example...
To make 1 litre of chlorine gas, you have to mix 6 litres of <censored product name> with 12 litres of <censored product name>, 2 litres of <censored product name> and 500ml of <censored product name>*. Needless to say, all that wonderful stuff costs cash, lots of cash.
Probably easier to just buy pure chlorine, but then again, that's also quite expensive.
Same with mustard agent... except tripple the ammounts of chemicals needed, and quadruple the number of ingrediants for 1 litre.

Of course Iraq used them on Kurds and Iran. I was stating that Iraq and Iran have been fighting since before any "great empire" has been around. Hell, the reason the Semites got writing, and subsequently so did Greece, Phonecia, Rome, and us, is because the Elamites (Iran) nearly wiped out the Sumerians (Iraq) around 5,000 years ago.
The oldest recorded battle in history is a fight between the Sumerians and Elamites in the area that is now Basra in 2740 BCE.

And um... anyone with access to a farm can get Anthrax, it comes from cows and horses. Same with anyone with access to anything medical, or anyone with access to living creatures. Biological weapons are more easily found by walking outside then by "creating" them.

British nuclear weapons -- good!
North Korean nuclear weapons -- bad!
Pakistani nuclear weapons -- good!
Iranian nuclear wepaons -- bad!

And in the future, probably...

Iraqi nuclear weapons -- good!

If you're confused, just think how confused everyone else is by now.

British nuclear weapons -- good!
North Korean nuclear weapons -- bad!
Pakistani nuclear weapons -- good!
Iranian nuclear wepaons -- bad!

And in the future, probably...

Iraqi nuclear weapons -- good!

If you're confused, just think how confused everyone else is by now.

You forgot:

Indian and Pakistanian nuclear weapons - let's not even talk about those

But it's now official. There never were any WMD in Iraq. It was not threat - to anyone.

So you think that just because there were no WMD found there weren't some. THink about it. THe only thing Sadam could deny was WMD because he knew he could hide them...and no not in the country. By hiding in another country and denying he had them, you and the rest of the liberal world is just playing into his ploy.

I don't think that's the real reason Bush went there. And I don't think we'll ever know what the real reason was.

I have a theory. I think that George W Bush never got over his Oedipus Complex as a child, is madly in love with his mother, and so imitates his father in everything he does. He also tries to outdo dadda Bush, and so pushes things a step further, even when it's clearly a bloody stupid thing to do.

I have a theory. I think that George W Bush never got over his Oedipus Complex as a child, is madly in love with his mother, and so imitates his father in everything he does. He also tries to outdo dadda Bush, and so pushes things a step further, even when it's clearly a bloody stupid thing to do.

http://www.whitehouse.org/news/2004/images/xmas-front.jpg

So you think that just because there were no WMD found there weren't some. THink about it. THe only thing Sadam could deny was WMD because he knew he could hide them...and no not in the country. By hiding in another country and denying he had them, you and the rest of the liberal world is just playing into his ploy.


Which country, exactly? Iraq didn't really have a vast collection of friends. In fact, no-one liked Iraq at all. There were never any WMDs, everyone in the US Government KNEW there were no WMDs, and most of them said so prior to 9/11. The fact that they suddenly changed their mind for no apparent reason at all and started claiming there were should have been a slight clue that your leaders were lying, and this should be taken as proof. Don't stick your head in the sand and start claiming Saddam hid them in Iran or something, because that would be total bullshit.

I don't think that's the real reason Bush went there. And I don't think we'll ever know what the real reason was.

I *do* think that terrorists will soon use some sort of WMD. After all, we still have no idea who brought the anthrax. And if a small cult in Japan can make them (nerve gas), then so can virtually any other small group.

You don't need a nation state to do those things. No big factories and no big labs. Just a basement and some glassware and a willingness to potentially die while making the stuff.
The guilty party in the Amerithrax case was almost certainly dr. Steven Hatfill. There just wasn't enough evidence to go to trial. He had access to anthrax, probably was involved in it's use in Rhodesia, and the anthrax was weaponized through an American method. I'd bet it's him.

And, along the sideline of reporters knowing nothing... let us all remember that one of the biggest hawks in print over the Issue of Iraq was William Saffre who basically called all those who questioned the need to go to war before hand as unpatriotic, and loudly decried all critics that it would be a simple operation. Go in, kill a bunch of people, collect the kisses and flowers from the Iraqi's, truck out all the WMD that would be piled up on Saddam's front lawn, and leave with democracy spreading out like peaceful wildfire while the corporations got rich on Iraqi oil sponsored reconstruction.

So what was Billy-boy saying right about the very same moment that the inspectors were getting called home? you know - just before Christmas?

Well let's see... (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/22/opinion/22safire.html?ex=1261458000&en=3acb575b1c273594&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland)


I now admit to having expected the war in Iraq to be won in a matter of months, not years. Saddam's plan to disperse his forces and conduct a murderous insurgency, abetted by his terrorist allies, was a surprise.

This by no means suggests that President Bush's decision to overthrow a dangerous despotism was a mistake. On the contrary, it was and is the right war (against a genocidal maniac who was gaining strength) in the right place (the Middle East cradle of terror) for the right purpose (to get the Arab street out of the rut of hatred and onto a path to freedom).

In return for today's grudging concession of tactical misjudgment, however, I claim this expectation: When and if we discover hidden supplies of germ weapons in Iraq or Syria, and as future confessions reveal the extent of connections between Al Qaeda and Saddam, the legion of war critics will forthrightly admit their certitude was misplaced.




Looks like his penchant for being completely and utterly wrong has not eluded him.... lmao.

Did they search all of Iraq?

All of Iraq?

Hmmm

And, along the sideline of reporters knowing nothing...

It's too easy to find a reporter who doesn't know anything.

Right now, the only media writer I'll read without worrying too much about his verity is Christopher Hitchens. He seems to be amply skeptical and very thorough about what he attempts to stand on.

Far brighter than any reporter I've heard from, even though he's not a reporter, but merely a writer.

It might be said also that while we have searched Iraq, we haven't searched everywhere else.

I always wondered why we let Pakistan make the very things we feared Iraq was making. Why do we let North Korea continue? According to Dr. Khan, North Korea does indeed have nuclear weapons - that he designed and they built with their plutonium.

So, why no invasions there?

So, why no invasions there?

Because they already have nukes. If you invade somebody who already has them, they're likely to use them if you start winning.

Did they search all of Iraq?

All of Iraq?

Hmmm

No, I imagine they just nipped down the corner shops and then had the rest of the two years off. They're weapon inspectors, so it's their JOB to find weapons, they have a large number of defectors on their side, and frankly the entire idea of the weapons was just an excuse for war.

Unless...

I remembered thinking at the time of the war, that both Britain and the US were big supporters of Saddam until about 1988. Britain, for example, sold Saddam a load of old Mustard gas we had lying around since WW1. And it's the US and Britain who were so big on this war. We were the ones who were CERTAIN he had weapons. No-one else believed in them.

What if we sold him WMDs, and then decided it would be less of an embaressment to take them back ourselves and claim they never existed? Better than the UN suddenly discovering that we were right, because we sold a dangerous dictator a load of illegal arms.

I always wondered why we let Pakistan make the very things we feared Iraq was making. Why do we let North Korea continue? According to Dr. Khan, North Korea does indeed have nuclear weapons - that he designed and they built with their plutonium.

So, why no invasions there?

Hypocracy.

Why do we let North Korea continue? According to Dr. Khan, North Korea does indeed have nuclear weapons - that he designed and they built with their plutonium.

So, why no invasions there?


Not trying to apply logic to Bush's actions, but when was the last time North Korea invaded a neighboring country? Also you do realize North Korea is using the threat of nuclear weapons as a means to garner food from the world community.
http://www.asiasource.org/news/at_mp_02.cfm?newsid=79637


Where as Iraq has invaded Iran, gassed Kurds, invaded Kuwait, fired missiles on Israel(that was in NO way involved in the liberation of Kuwait)...not to mention the continued belligerence vs UN inspections, sanctions, etc.

Just my guess.

Not trying to apply logic to Bush's actions, but when was the last time North Korea invaded a neighboring country? Also you do realize North Korea is using the threat of nuclear weapons as a means to garner food from the world community.
http://www.asiasource.org/news/at_mp_02.cfm?newsid=79637
Where as Iraq has invaded Iran, gassed Kurds, invaded Kuwait, fired missiles on Israel(that was in NO way involved in the liberation of Kuwait)...not to mention the continued belligerence vs UN inspections, sanctions, etc.

Just my guess.

Well, enforcing an existing UN resolution might have been part of it as well...

Because they already have nukes. If you invade somebody who already has them, they're likely to use them if you start winning.
oh NO pi!
if we invaded, say north korea, they would bury their nukes in the sand or send them to another country. after all isnt that what iraq did ??


thats what EVERYONE does when their enemy invades, they ditch their best weapons. i thought everyone knew that

[/sarcasm]

oh NO pi!
if we invaded, say north korea, they would bury their nukes in the sand or send them to another country. after all isnt that what iraq did ??


thats what EVERYONE does when their enemy invades, they ditch their best weapons. i thought everyone knew that

[/sarcasm]


Yes, Saddam was such the humanitarian that he unilaterally disarmed all of his chemical and biological weapons. Which explains why he blocked UN inspectors for 4 years.

[/sarcasm]

And who got the money from Oil for Food? Surely not the Iraqi people...

Yes, Saddam was such the humanitarian that he unilaterally disarmed all of his chemical and biological weapons. Which explains why he blocked UN inspectors for 4 years.

[/sarcasm]

Possibly he blocked them for 4 years because he wanted his neighbors to be frightened of him. Since he didn't, you know, actually have any weapons. Unless you're saying they were INVISIBLE WMDs. Which clearly justifies the invasion completely; we can't have such a fiend controlling the worl's first invisible weaponry. That's asking for trouble.

And who got the money from Oil for Food? Surely not the Iraqi people...

Actually under Saddam people were far better off in terms of living conditions. OF course you had no political freedom, but you had a much better chance of not starving even with the brutal sanctions.


Child malnutrition soars in Iraq

Sunday 21 November 2004, 19:38 Makka Time, 16:38 GMT

Child malnutrition has nearly doubled since the invasion

Young children in Iraq are suffering from acute malnutrition, which a series of new surveys say has nearly doubled since the US-led invasion of the country last year.

The Washington Post reported on Sunday that the rate of acute malnutrition among Iraqi children under five has shot up to 7.7% this year, according to a study by Iraq's health ministry, Norway's Institute for Applied International Studies and the United Nations.

This translates to roughly 400,000 Iraqi children suffering from "wasting," a condition characterised by chronic diarrhoea and dangerous....

I seem to recall that there were a lot of other things that didn't exist in Iraq prior to the invasion.

Clean drinking water in a fair number of areas - did not exist prior to the invasion.

Getting shot into pits by the hundreds of thousands isn't a good thing, either.

I would imagine that economic progress post-Saddam would have been much faster if there had been no insurgency.

Yes, Saddam was such the humanitarian that he unilaterally disarmed all of his chemical and biological weapons. Which explains why he blocked UN inspectors for 4 years.

[/sarcasm]

Didn't you know? Saddam was blocking UN inspectors so that he could surprise the world with his new humanitarian side on Christmas of 2005.
Now the US spoiled the best Cjristmas present ever, shame on the US.

Hmm. I don't think we're wearing the white hats.

But I don't think that some BBC reporter knows what's going on any more than Bush does.

And as for corporate plundering of another nation - there's not 100 billion dollars per year of oil in Iraq. So if it's corporate plundering of Iraq, it's got a negative balance. Which is why I don't buy that as a theory either.
The balance is only negative if you consider the net result. If you seperate the spreadsheets into public and private files it becomes quite clear the buisnesses prosper while the taxpayer loses. The adminstration favors the private sector quite clearly, the ties are evident to even the most jaded.

The balance is only negative if you consider the net result. If you seperate the spreadsheets into public and private files it becomes quite clear the buisnesses prosper while the taxpayer loses. The adminstration favors the private sectorquite clearly, the ties are evident to even the most jaded.
republicans are either in deep denial about the true nature of the Bush administration or their experts at lying to themselves--in any event their shallow party loyalty is destroying everything great about our nation

It's spelled "capisce".

And, no. Why are you mentioning terrorism in a thread about Iraq?

Actually in the way he is using it "capisci"

Capisce is he/she....

Rumsfeld and Cheney come from a Defense background that is heavily permeated by game theorists.
Is that how the PNAC describes themselves these days? "Game theorists?" I would actually laugh if I weren't scared stiff by that thought.
There's a game that's being run here.
A game?! What fun! How do you propose explaining THAT to the families of our fallen soldiers? "It's just like 'Extreme Combat III' only for real! Heh heh heh."
Somehow I feel you actually trust these gamemasters of yours. If it wasn't WMD (and that wasn't a very good smokescreen, BTW. A lot of us didn't buy it from the start) and it wasn't the oil and it wasn't terrorist ties and it wasn't making a lot of money for Halliburton and other Bush family cronies and consortium members and it wasn't anything that anyone can fathom, then there truly can be only one answer.
God told Bush to do it, right?! He's been tapped by the Almightly to encite armageddon; bring about the End of Days.
"Hey megalomaniac, you're no Jesus!"
I'd rather think that they simply lied to us so they could make a lot of money. They are not doing anything that is in the best interests of the American people. I don't trust them! Neither should you!

I think this is a pointless arguement, as none of us can really know what we are talking about. Did Bush lie? It's possible. Did he genuinely think Iraq had WMDs? Again, possible. Is someone playing war games? Another possibility. I know everyone has to form some opinion on which answer it is but don't think that others are ignorant for believing differently. Unless of course you are omniscient, then by all means go ahead.

I always wondered why we let Pakistan make the very things we feared Iraq was making. Why do we let North Korea continue? According to Dr. Khan, North Korea does indeed have nuclear weapons - that he designed and they built with their plutonium.

So, why no invasions there? One word: OIL. Why do you think the administration started saber-rattling about Iran?

Actually in the way he is using it "capisci"

Capisce is he/she....

Romani ite domum...

Is that how the PNAC describes themselves these days? "Game theorists?" I would actually laugh if I weren't scared stiff by that thought.


Maybe you should read up on game theory, a topic that was made popular in Defense Department circles by that famous Democrat, Robert McNamara.

We had a small departure from game theory into realpolitik (an alternative championed by Kissinger), but it would seem that we're back into game theory.

Game theory won the Cold War, if you care to read your history.

"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." - Donald Rumsfeld ABC Interview, March 30, 2003
Er "The WMD are here or there, or located some distance from here or there, in any possible direction"...could someone who actually believed in the validity and accuracy of the intelligence about the WMD's please explain how a comment like this wasnt a huge tip off?

:confused: