NationStates Jolt Archive

I am astounded that, even today (Feb. 14, 2007), I was told by a local neoconservative that "if you're a liberal, Iraq had no WMD's. If you're a realist, there were enough chemical weapons to knock off half of Israel".

Such mind-blowing ignorance simply astounded me, and I immediately moved to write an article that set the record straight once and for all for those of us who are still operating under the idea that Iraq had WMD's. An excerpt of this article follows:
-----------------------
The Duelfer Report is the final report that was issued to the United States Congress in September of 2004 by the Iraq Survey Group. I.S.G. was the group charged by the Coalition with destroying Saddam Hussein's stockpiles of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons. It was composed of Americans, Australians, and British...though the U.S. provided the bulk of the personnel and support.

The report is quite lengthy, but the CIA was kind enough to condense the findings for relatively easy review (the report is available at https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/index.html).

The Key Findings include this important statement: "Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq's WMD ability -which was essentially destroyed in 1991- after sanctions were removed and Iraq's economy stabilized." Furthermore, the report states that IRAN was the principle motivator of this policy; all top Iraqi officials in Saddam's regime considered Iran to be Iraq's most dangerous enemy (this is hardly surprising considering the incredibly bloody war fought between the two nations several years prior).

Neoconservatives have made much ado about the discovery of chemical weapons in Iraq. Yet the Duelfer Report states: "While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, I.S.G. judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its' undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991." The handful of chemical shells discovered by I.S.G. had degraded (they were apparently leftovers from the Iraq-Iran War), and were not useful as weapons anymore. They did not present a serious threat to the United States or its' allies.

Nor did Iraq have anything approaching a nuclear weapon. ISG discovered that Iraqi efforts to design an atomic weapon were well underway, but stopped in 1991. Initially Saddam Hussein attempted to conceal the program, but aggressive inspections by U.N. personnel and a growing fear of military retaliation (should the program be discovered) resulted in Saddam terminating the program after 1991. Iraq's intellectual talent dedicated to the development of such weapons began to decay steadily after that date.

Nor did Saddam have access to biological weapons. Although (as with the other programs) Iraq initially attempted to preserve as much of the BW infrastructure as possible, inspections made this policy increasingly dangerous and difficult to maintain. I.S.G. ruled that, although not conclusive, Iraq appeared to have destroyed its' undeclared BW stockpiles in 1991 and 1992, and in 1995 (with the Iraqi economy in crisis), the Regime abandoned the program. The Regime's reasons for abandoning the program were several, but it appears that Hussein was most concerned with the potential for further action against him should the program be uncovered.

In conclusion, I.S.G. essentially rules that after 1991, Saddam Hussein's stockpiles of weapons were effectively liquidated. Hussein's priority was apparently the survival of his regime, and when the weapons became a short-term threat to that regime, he relinquished them. After 1991, all of Iraq's WMD programs began a definite decay, and Hussein was in no position to immediately revive them. The economic sanctions imposed on Hussein's country effectively crippled his ability to produce weapons. Hussein showed great interest in resuming the programs, but dictated that the removal of U.N. economic sanctions were a priority before such reinvestment could take place.

In 2005, ISG published an additional document which addressed some other questions that had arisen. The conclusions were as follows:

-Although they could not conclude it with 100% certainty, I.S.G. judged that it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria (or elsewhere) took place.
-I.S.G. concluded that "any remaining chemical munitions in Iraq do not pose a militarily significant threat ... ISG has not found evidence to indicate that Iraq did not destroy its BW weapons or bulk agents"
-I.S.G. stated that, "Iraq’s remaining chemical and biological physical infrastructure does not pose a proliferation concern".


-----------------

I never supported the Iraq War on the basis of WMDs - I supported it on the basis that Saddam was a potential threat akin to Hitler in 1933; and given how the PRC has made deals with less than ideal nations such as Iran and Sudan, I think it was for the better

peanut butter sandwiches

I am astounded that, even today (Feb. 14, 2007), I was told by a local neoconservative that "if you're a liberal, Iraq had no WMD's. If you're a realist, there were enough chemical weapons to knock off half of Israel".

Such mind-blowing ignorance simply astounded me, and I immediately moved to write an article that set the record straight once and for all for those of us who are still operating under the idea that Iraq had WMD's. An excerpt of this article follows:
-----------------------
The Duelfer Report is the final report that was issued to the United States Congress in September of 2004 by the Iraq Survey Group. I.S.G. was the group charged by the Coalition with destroying Saddam Hussein's stockpiles of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons. It was composed of Americans, Australians, and British...though the U.S. provided the bulk of the personnel and support.

The report is quite lengthy, but the CIA was kind enough to condense the findings for relatively easy review (the report is available at https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/index.html).

The Key Findings include this important statement: "Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq's WMD ability -which was essentially destroyed in 1991- after sanctions were removed and Iraq's economy stabilized." Furthermore, the report states that IRAN was the principle motivator of this policy; all top Iraqi officials in Saddam's regime considered Iran to be Iraq's most dangerous enemy (this is hardly surprising considering the incredibly bloody war fought between the two nations several years prior).

Neoconservatives have made much ado about the discovery of chemical weapons in Iraq. Yet the Duelfer Report states: "While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, I.S.G. judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its' undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991." The handful of chemical shells discovered by I.S.G. had degraded (they were apparently leftovers from the Iraq-Iran War), and were not useful as weapons anymore. They did not present a serious threat to the United States or its' allies.

Nor did Iraq have anything approaching a nuclear weapon. ISG discovered that Iraqi efforts to design an atomic weapon were well underway, but stopped in 1991. Initially Saddam Hussein attempted to conceal the program, but aggressive inspections by U.N. personnel and a growing fear of military retaliation (should the program be discovered) resulted in Saddam terminating the program after 1991. Iraq's intellectual talent dedicated to the development of such weapons began to decay steadily after that date.

Nor did Saddam have access to biological weapons. Although (as with the other programs) Iraq initially attempted to preserve as much of the BW infrastructure as possible, inspections made this policy increasingly dangerous and difficult to maintain. I.S.G. ruled that, although not conclusive, Iraq appeared to have destroyed its' undeclared BW stockpiles in 1991 and 1992, and in 1995 (with the Iraqi economy in crisis), the Regime abandoned the program. The Regime's reasons for abandoning the program were several, but it appears that Hussein was most concerned with the potential for further action against him should the program be uncovered.

In conclusion, I.S.G. essentially rules that after 1991, Saddam Hussein's stockpiles of weapons were effectively liquidated. Hussein's priority was apparently the survival of his regime, and when the weapons became a short-term threat to that regime, he relinquished them. After 1991, all of Iraq's WMD programs began a definite decay, and Hussein was in no position to immediately revive them. The economic sanctions imposed on Hussein's country effectively crippled his ability to produce weapons. Hussein showed great interest in resuming the programs, but dictated that the removal of U.N. economic sanctions were a priority before such reinvestment could take place.

In 2005, ISG published an additional document which addressed some other questions that had arisen. The conclusions were as follows:

-Although they could not conclude it with 100% certainty, I.S.G. judged that it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria (or elsewhere) took place.
-I.S.G. concluded that "any remaining chemical munitions in Iraq do not pose a militarily significant threat ... ISG has not found evidence to indicate that Iraq did not destroy its BW weapons or bulk agents"
-I.S.G. stated that, "Iraq’s remaining chemical and biological physical infrastructure does not pose a proliferation concern".


-----------------

Amen to that. *bows*

There's a place for you here, most certainly.

so what did you say back to the guy when he said that iraq had wmd?

im thinking that mentioning that the president of the united states agrees that iraq had no wmd should be enough to shut him up.

Well, excuse us Americans for not being omniscient (is that the right word?). The Iraq Surrender Group's finding's aren't a surprise, really. But people keep forgetting America's one percent doctrine/rule/whatever it is. And the fact is, pre-Iraq invasion, given the intel. we had, there was a pretty good chance that Hussein either had or was working to make nuclear/chemical/biological weapons.

umm... tl;dr ?

Well, excuse us Americans for not being omniscient (is that the right word?). The Iraq Surrender Group's finding's aren't a surprise, really. But people keep forgetting America's one percent doctrine/rule/whatever it is. And the fact is, pre-Iraq invasion, given the intel. we had, there was a pretty good chance that Hussein either had or was working to make nuclear/chemical/biological weapons.

Er, given the intel we had, Saddam obviously did not have, nor was he working to make, WMDs.

If I knew the Bush administration was in nothing but a bullshit pissing contest with Hussein from the start it doesn't seem too much of a stretch to think the mainstream media might eventually figure it out. Why the hell can't people do a little investigating themselves? Most of this shit wasn't exactly classified information.

Well, excuse us Americans for not being omniscient (is that the right word?). The Iraq Surrender Group's finding's aren't a surprise, really. But people keep forgetting America's one percent doctrine/rule/whatever it is. And the fact is, pre-Iraq invasion, given the intel. we had, there was a pretty good chance that Hussein either had or was working to make nuclear/chemical/biological weapons.

You mean the intel other people had, because the intel we had was telling us "omgnothatswrongstfu."

If I knew the Bush administration was in nothing but a bullshit pissing contest with Hussein from the start it doesn't seem too much of a stretch to think the mainstream media might eventually figure it out. Why the hell can't people do a little investigating themselves? Most of this shit wasn't exactly classified information.

Because most people are too lazy to bother, and because they don't really care until it becomes their problem.

You mean the intel other people had, because the intel we had was telling us "omgnothatswrongstfu."

Are you saying that someone else's intel. said he had WMD while ours said he didn't?

OK, OK, let's clear this up: who is "other people", and who is "we"?

Are you saying that someone else's intel. said he had WMD while ours said he didn't?

OK, OK, let's clear this up: who is "other people", and who is "we"?

We=America.

The only new evidence we had for Saddam possessing WMDs was a source code-named "Curveball". Curveball was an Iraqi claiming to have been in one of Saddam's chemical weapons programs. Curveball was being held and interrogated by the German intelligence services, the BND. The Germans flat-out told us he was a liar, an alcoholic ,and that he was being payed for every bit of intel he supplied. The administration ignored the Germans.

Next up we have allegations that Saddam purchased a type of Uranium called yellowcake from Niger, this type of Uranium can be used to make a nuke. This lovely bit of info was initially given to us by Italy, who cited a credible Iraqi source, and seemed to clinch the case for the invasion of Iraq. One tiny little snag got in the way: the paper was a forgery, completely faked.

The rest of the intel we had was old, like 1980s old. Many congressmen didn't even read the pre-war intelligence report, and the ones that did and noted the discrepancies were too afraid to speak out.

I never supported the Iraq War on the basis of WMDs - I supported it on the basis that Saddam was a potential threat akin to Hitler in 1933; and given how the PRC has made deals with less than ideal nations such as Iran and Sudan, I think it was for the better

That is not a particularly strong connection. Saddam Hussein was not likely to become another Adolf Hitler. Unlike Hitler, he was not in a position to unite the lands around him. The Sunni/Shia divide runs deep and bitter. He certainly was not going to be able to muster a military force that would have made him anything more than a regional threat.

If you are referring to the People's Republic of China, I don't see how much we influence them NOT to make deals with unsavory sorts. The United States is far more discerning in its' relationships as we "don't talk to evil". China will talk to anybody who wishes to do business. Considering how much economic clout China holds over the United States, moving actively to block Chinese objectives might prove dangerous.

Well, excuse us Americans for not being omniscient (is that the right word?). The Iraq Surrender Group's finding's aren't a surprise, really. But people keep forgetting America's one percent doctrine/rule/whatever it is. And the fact is, pre-Iraq invasion, given the intel. we had, there was a pretty good chance that Hussein either had or was working to make nuclear/chemical/biological weapons.

They were not called the Iraq Surrender group.

More to the point, you seem to be suggesting that America has a right to smite somebody even if it is only marginally worried about something that is going on. I'm an American too, and I am inclined to say that that type of meddling is what created this situation in the first place.

Yeah, NeoCons here, NeoCons, they're honestly just as blind as the damn SS. They're also half retarded. Note many are from the south. The NeoCons in power know the truth, but they're simply evil and want power, money, racism, religous power, and respect. Of which they deserve none, except for the same thing that the Nazis got. I'd think its resonable to compare the NeoCon movement with a Facist one.

I never supported the Iraq War on the basis of WMDs - I supported it on the basis that Saddam was a potential threat akin to Hitler in 1933; and given how the PRC has made deals with less than ideal nations such as Iran and Sudan, I think it was for the betterIf you really believed that, then you are either ignorant of Germany's strength relative to the rest of Europe in the years 1933-1939, or you've been listening to too many right-wing talking heads who consider themselves historians.

But people keep forgetting America's one percent doctrine/rule/whatever it is.
I wish we would forget it, because it's one of the stupidest fucking doctrines ever devised.

Yeah, NeoCons here, NeoCons, they're honestly just as blind as the damn SS. They're also half retarded. Note many are from the south. The NeoCons in power know the truth, but they're simply evil and want power, money, racism, religous power, and respect. Of which they deserve none, except for the same thing that the Nazis got. I'd think its resonable to compare the NeoCon movement with a Facist one.

http://img394.imageshack.us/img394/7072/godwinslaw7qt.gif

Sorry, I just really needed an excuse to post that.

If you really believed that, then you are either ignorant of Germany's strength relative to the rest of Europe in the years 1933-1939, or you've been listening to too many right-wing talking heads who consider themselves historians.

I am aware of Germany's strength in 1933; I did a topic in History some years back on the causes of World War II. What I got taught (by the way, it was by some very left wing pseudo-Communist teachers), was that the German military was virtually non-existent and could have been easily wiped out by any one of its neighbours; its army was 100,000 strong for goodness sake - compared with the Czechoslovaks which had an army several times larger. They had a pathetic navy, and no air force and the economy was in crumbs with no useful natural resources; kind of like Iraq in 2003, except Iraq had enough oil to fund an expansion. It took Hitler only six years to build the army up to a state where it could threaten the world.

Saddam may not have been able to easily unite the nations around him; however, once he got WMDs from the PRC, then he could have started off a World War - Iraq fires missile (quite possibly nuclear, given how the PRC has tolerated nukes in North Korea) to some other country in the Mid East, Mid East and America attack Iraq, PRC and Russia step in to help Iraq and before you know it, the entire world is at war again - at least that possibility has been minimised by one country. Now, if only we could deal with Iran and North Korea

Hussein could barely hold his own country together (as is especially obvious now in hindsight), let alone uniting with anybody else. Also, he wasn't stupid enough not to know that even if he did acquire nuclear weapons, he couldn't use them on anybody because if the blame fell for any nuclear explosion fell on him, there would be no Iraq the next day.

Also, part of the way Germany brought its armed forces to bear so fast was that what they basically did while their military was limited in size was train a core of officers, so that when war came all they'd need do was start conscription and they'd have their army ready made.

When Hitler was coming to power, everyone in Europe was still sick of war from WWI (which after all hadn't been that long ago), and so wanted peace at pretty much any cost. In contrast, Hussein couldn't so much as sneeze without everyone jumping on him for it after the first gulf war.

http://img394.imageshack.us/img394/7072/godwinslaw7qt.gif

Sorry, I just really needed an excuse to post that.

hehe, clever, however I may be wrong, calling NeoCons Nazis is probably too much of a compliment to them.

I am aware of Germany's strength in 1933; I did a topic in History some years back on the causes of World War II. What I got taught (by the way, it was by some very left wing pseudo-Communist teachers), was that the German military was virtually non-existent and could have been easily wiped out by any one of its neighbours; its army was 100,000 strong for goodness sake - compared with the Czechoslovaks which had an army several times larger. They had a pathetic navy, and no air force and the economy was in crumbs with no useful natural resources; kind of like Iraq in 2003, except Iraq had enough oil to fund an expansion. It took Hitler only six years to build the army up to a state where it could threaten the world.

Germany was an economic powerhouse by the time Hitler began rebuilding his army, Hitler built a strong economy. Iraq's economy made 'piss-poor' an understatement.

Also, part of the way Germany brought its armed forces to bear so fast was that what they basically did while their military was limited in size was train a core of officers, so that when war came all they'd need do was start conscription and they'd have their army ready made.

They also relied on a large number of paramilitary organizations, like the Hitler Youth. These created a large core of civilians who had experience in a strict hierarchy.

While I never supported (or really opposed, or thought much of it at all to be honest) the Iraq war, I have two questions directed mainly at Americans;

(1) If Saddam had WMD, and the invading Allies found stockpiles of WMD in 2003, but Iraq still slid into its current status; would you have (a) supported the War in 2003 after the discovery of WMD and (b) continued to support the war after Iraq slid into chaos?

And

(2) If Iraq really did became a peaceful Jeffersonian democracy after the invasion, although WMD were not found, and US soldiers came home 6 months after invading; would you have supported the War in Iraq?

They also relied on a large number of paramilitary organizations, like the Hitler Youth. These created a large core of civilians who had experience in a strict hierarchy.

So basically, comparing Hussein to Hitler is pretty misleading.

Well, excuse us Americans for not being omniscient (is that the right word?). The Iraq Surrender Group's finding's aren't a surprise, really. But people keep forgetting America's one percent doctrine/rule/whatever it is. And the fact is, pre-Iraq invasion, given the intel. we had, there was a pretty good chance that Hussein either had or was working to make nuclear/chemical/biological weapons.

Not according to the British.

"IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY."

"Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article387374.ece

peanut butter sandwiches

Peanut Butter Jelly Time?

(1) If Saddam had WMD, and the invading Allies found stockpiles of WMD in 2003, but Iraq still slid into its current status; would you have (a) supported the War in 2003 after the discovery of WMDNo. You forget that the weapons inspections which could have found those weapons were stopped due to a pending US invasion.
and (b) continued to support the war after Iraq slid into chaos?The potential for destabilization in the region was one of the best reasons not to go to war. Why remove a regime that gave some help to terrorists with a live fire terror training camp?

(2) If Iraq really did became a peaceful Jeffersonian democracy after the invasion, although WMD were not found, and US soldiers came home 6 months after invading; would you have supported the War in Iraq?No, but I would be relieved that things didn't get as bad as they likely would have.

Germany was an economic powerhouse by the time Hitler began rebuilding his army, Hitler built a strong economy. Iraq's economy made 'piss-poor' an understatement.Not to mention that there were no economic sanctions preventing Hitler from buying steel from Sweden.

Peanut Butter Jelly Time?
The NeoCon approach to WMDS:

It's Peanut Butter Jelly Time! Peanut Butter Jelly Time!
Do the Peanut Butter Jelly
Peanut Butter Jelly,
Peanut Butter Jelly with a Baseball bat.

Now where they at?
Where they at?
Where they at?
Where they at?
Now there they go!
There they go!
There they go!
There they go!

(Repeat ad nauseum)

I never supported the Iraq War on the basis of WMDs - I supported it on the basis that Saddam was a potential threat akin to Hitler in 1933; and given how the PRC has made deals with less than ideal nations such as Iran and Sudan, I think it was for the better

I supported it because he was going to make purple underwear mandatory and make everyone eat provalone cheese for breakfast.

Well, excuse us Americans for not being omniscient (is that the right word?).

No, nobody excuses you, or us for that matter. If you're not omniscient, then it is wise not to act as if you are, maybe let the weapons inspectors do their job rather than insult the entire international community by invading. In other words, make like a cheese-eating surrender monkey. Sticks in the throat, doesn't it, but you've got to admit it...

The French were right.

While I never supported (or really opposed, or thought much of it at all to be honest) the Iraq war, I have two questions directed mainly at Americans;

(1) If Saddam had WMD, and the invading Allies found stockpiles of WMD in 2003, but Iraq still slid into its current status; would you have (a) supported the War in 2003 after the discovery of WMD and (b) continued to support the war after Iraq slid into chaos?

And

(2) If Iraq really did became a peaceful Jeffersonian democracy after the invasion, although WMD were not found, and US soldiers came home 6 months after invading; would you have supported the War in Iraq?

Does it matter? A large part of the reason I opposed the war from the beginning was because I knew, looking at the rhetoric from the people in charge, that this thing was doomed to failure, and ugly failure at that. And I was far from alone, too.

Does it matter? A large part of the reason I opposed the war from the beginning was because I knew, looking at the rhetoric from the people in charge, that this thing was doomed to failure, and ugly failure at that. And I was far from alone, too.

Your precognitive abilities impress me.

Does it matter? A large part of the reason I opposed the war from the beginning was because I knew, looking at the rhetoric from the people in charge, that this thing was doomed to failure, and ugly failure at that. And I was far from alone, too.
Yep.

I'm not particularly clever, or even particularly well-informed. I don't have any special sources that other people can't access. I don't have magical mind powers. But I knew, from the instant the "War On Terror" began, that it was going to be a complete and total disaster. From the moment our target switched from Afghanistan to Iraq, I knew that we were going to lose spectacularly.

The incompetence and corruption of the people running the show was so obvious to me that I'm still, to this day, shocked by the number of people who actually believe we ever had a chance to win the "War On Terror." The fact that people are still blathering about how to achieve "victory" is remarkable to me. There is no "victory" in this. There never was.

No war but the ass war. :cool:

The following video will give the reasosn for the Iraq War. It is an education....

The Iraq War (http://youtube.com/watch?v=oVCk4kr0FRk)

Well, excuse us Americans for not being omniscient (is that the right word?).I think the UN should formulate plans to disarm - and failing that annihilate - America. Obviously the leadership of the country constitutes a clear & present danger to world peace, and are wholly unfit to command a military.

We the nations & peoples of the world must thus unite in a preemptive strike against the US, should the criminally insane leadership of that country refuse to disarm within a timeframe of no more than 3 months (an obvious impossibility, forcing us to resort to force of arms).

The above is sarcasm, should it have eluded you. It is however based in the indisputable fact that every single US administration since the exit of WWII, have been far greater threats to universal peace & prosperity, than Saddam ever had the potential to become. If you silly Americans argue in favour of preemptive strikes, start with yourselves. It's as inane as an armed burgler in the midst of his crime, arguing for the right to defend property with lethal force of arms.

So basically, comparing Hussein to Hitler is pretty misleading.

Exactly.

Not just misleading, but stupid, ill-informed and just plain ignorant.
Kind of like neo-cons.

Your precognitive abilities impress me.

Don't let them. I'm nothing special--just observant. One of the things that still bugs me about the Iraq War vote are the politicians who hide behind the "I didn't know they'd screw it up so bad" excuse. What made you think that? What had Bush done in his time as President to warrant that sort of trust? Before 9/11, he was on his way to being an even bigger one-term loser than his dad--so what was it that suddenly made him competent? I'd have loved it if even one Senator had stood up on the floor and said "This guy can't find his ass with both hands and a road map, and you want to give him the power to go to war unilaterally? Are you stoned?"

Don't let them. I'm nothing special--just observant. One of the things that still bugs me about the Iraq War vote are the politicians who hide behind the "I didn't know they'd screw it up so bad" excuse. What made you think that? What had Bush done in his time as President to warrant that sort of trust? Before 9/11, he was on his way to being an even bigger one-term loser than his dad--so what was it that suddenly made him competent? I'd have loved it if even one Senator had stood up on the floor and said "This guy can't find his ass with both hands and a road map, and you want to give him the power to go to war unilaterally? Are you stoned?"

He lost a spy plane to china.

Wait...crap.

He lost a spy plane to china.

Wait...crap.

I'd pretty much forgotten that. Keeping this dumbass's failures in your head is an impossible task.

We=America.

The only new evidence we had for Saddam possessing WMDs was a source code-named "Curveball". Curveball was an Iraqi claiming to have been in one of Saddam's chemical weapons programs. Curveball was being held and interrogated by the German intelligence services, the BND. The Germans flat-out told us he was a liar, an alcoholic ,and that he was being payed for every bit of intel he supplied. The administration ignored the Germans.

Next up we have allegations that Saddam purchased a type of Uranium called yellowcake from Niger, this type of Uranium can be used to make a nuke. This lovely bit of info was initially given to us by Italy, who cited a credible Iraqi source, and seemed to clinch the case for the invasion of Iraq. One tiny little snag got in the way: the paper was a forgery, completely faked.

The rest of the intel we had was old, like 1980s old. Many congressmen didn't even read the pre-war intelligence report, and the ones that did and noted the discrepancies were too afraid to speak out.

Fixed.

I'd pretty much forgotten that. Keeping this dumbass's failures in your head is an impossible task.

the only reason I remember it is a saturday night live episode from the time featuring pierce brosnan playing a skit as a horrible stand up comic yelling "GIVE US BACK OUR PLANE!" at a fat asian kid in the audience

the only reason I remember it is a saturday night live episode from the time featuring pierce brosnan playing a skit as a horrible stand up comic yelling "GIVE US BACK OUR PLANE!" at a fat asian kid in the audience

That sounds bad enough to be an SNL skit. :eek:

I'd pretty much forgotten that. Keeping this dumbass's failures in your head is an impossible task.

If I had a nickel for every failure he made, I could single-handedly pay off the national debt, wipe out the defecit, and still have enough to enjoy steak and lobster for dinner every night for the rest of my life.

If I had a nickel for every failure he made, I could single-handedly pay off the national debt, wipe out the defecit, and still have enough to enjoy steak and lobster for dinner every night for the rest of my life.

And still have enough left over to buy me a MAPO-MIG MiG-29SVT, which I should mention would be required of you, if you're suddenly getting nickles for the Shrub's fuck-ups.

Well, excuse us Americans for not being omniscient (is that the right word?). The Iraq Surrender Group's finding's aren't a surprise, really. But people keep forgetting America's one percent doctrine/rule/whatever it is. And the fact is, pre-Iraq invasion, given the intel. we had, there was a pretty good chance that Hussein either had or was working to make nuclear/chemical/biological weapons.

The Iraq "Surrender" Group? Are you kidding? You don't know who made up the group? Allow me ...

The Iraq Survey Group (ISG) was a fact-finding mission sent by the multinational force in Iraq after the 2003 Invasion of Iraq to find weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs developed by Iraq under the regime of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. Its final report is commonly called the Duelfer Report. It consisted of a 1,400-member international team organized by The Pentagon and CIA to hunt for suspected stockpiles of WMD, such as chemical and biological agents, and any supporting research programs and infrastructure that could be used to develop WMD.

The ISG was made up of more than one thousand Americans, Britons and Australians, with the United States providing the bulk of the personnel and resources for the operation. These people included civilian and military intelligence and WMD experts, as well as a large number people working to provide armed security and support. David Kay, a prominent U.S. scientist who searched for WMD after the first Gulf War, was chosen to head the group. The agency tasked as the head U.S. Government Agency of the ISG was a joint venture of the CIA and the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency, the DoD counterpart to the CIA which is primarily responsible for inter-agency cooperation).

I bolded some stuff just in case, you know, you don't feel like reading. :rolleyes:

Such silly liberal ignorance in this thread.

And still have enough left over to buy me a MAPO-MIG MiG-29SVT, which I should mention would be required of you, if you're suddenly getting nickles for the Shrub's fuck-ups.

Oh, I'd have more than enough to buy you one. And I would. :D

Such silly liberal ignorance in this thread.

Indeed? We do know why we invaded Iraq. Not because of weapons of mass destruction, not because of Saddam and al-Qaeda working together, not even because Saddam was a dictator and we hate dictators. It was because Saddam once tried to assassinate Bush's father, or threatened to, anyway.

The worst part is, thousands of people will die, that country will be ruined, the United States' reputation will be badly damaged, and no one will even say as much as, "Oops, my bad."

On a side note, I saw a teeny little article on page 30 of the local newspaper two days ago that outlines the massive funding cuts the Bush administration is planning for veterans' benefits through 2009 or 2010. After a little bump up this year, you vets had better get well soon, 'cause Uncle Sam's scaling things back.

O tempora! O mores!

On a side note, I saw a teeny little article on page 30 of the local newspaper two days ago that outlines the massive funding cuts the Bush administration is planning for veterans' benefits through 2009 or 2010. After a little bump up this year, you vets had better get well soon, 'cause Uncle Sam's scaling things back.

Funny, I thought Bush supported the troops!

[/sarcasm]

Funny, I thought Bush supported the troops!

[/sarcasm]

You have to support the troops with the funds you have, not with the funds you want. I think. I need to consult Sensei Rumsfeld.

Well, excuse us Americans for not being omniscient (is that the right word?). The Iraq Surrender Group's finding's aren't a surprise, really. But people keep forgetting America's one percent doctrine/rule/whatever it is. And the fact is, pre-Iraq invasion, given the intel. we had, there was a pretty good chance that Hussein either had or was working to make nuclear/chemical/biological weapons.

Nice spouting of the Neocon talking points, there, pal. This ISG is not the James Baker group, but the Iraq SURVEY Group sent to survey and catalogue Saddam's WMD protential.

No, we Americans are not omniscient (and yes, that was the right word), but my government sure as hell weren't reasonable, realistic, careful or thoughtful, either.

You have to support the troops with the funds you have, not with the funds you want. I think. I need to consult Sensei Rumsfeld.

lol

On a more serious note, I find it absurd that Bush claims to "support" the troops, yet sends them into battle without the proper armor, etc., sends them off to fight no-win wars, views them as little more than cannon-fodder, and cuts their benefits. Dickhead.

lol

On a more serious note, I find it absurd that Bush claims to "support" the troops, yet sends them into battle without the proper armor, etc., sends them off to fight no-win wars, views them as little more than cannon-fodder, and cuts their benefits. Dickhead.

I know. A month or so ago I proposed that Bush move over to the Green Zone in Baghdad, a sort of Middle-Eastern White House, and take personal charge of the Surge. We have instant communications these days (hell, my boss can find me day or night), he could very easily run the country from over there. The time difference might be a bitch, but so what if the government over here had to work the graveyard shift for a couple of years. I heard that people in certain agencies of the Soviet Union stayed at their desks until all hours just in case Comrade Stalin decided to call (which he did from time to time). If the Surge is such a good idea, we need to have the leader of our country on the job in person. Think of the boost to morale that would be.

No, you're all wrong. There were weapons of mass distraction - uh, destruction - but Saddam destroyed them with no trace, by leaving them in the teleportation buffer until the signals degraded.

At least, that seems to be the only possible explanation.

I am aware of Germany's strength in 1933; I did a topic in History some years back on the causes of World War II. What I got taught (by the way, it was by some very left wing pseudo-Communist teachers), was that the German military was virtually non-existent and could have been easily wiped out by any one of its neighbours; its army was 100,000 strong for goodness sake - compared with the Czechoslovaks which had an army several times larger. They had a pathetic navy, and no air force and the economy was in crumbs with no useful natural resources; kind of like Iraq in 2003, except Iraq had enough oil to fund an expansion. It took Hitler only six years to build the army up to a state where it could threaten the world.

Saddam may not have been able to easily unite the nations around him; however, once he got WMDs from the PRC, then he could have started off a World War - Iraq fires missile (quite possibly nuclear, given how the PRC has tolerated nukes in North Korea) to some other country in the Mid East, Mid East and America attack Iraq, PRC and Russia step in to help Iraq and before you know it, the entire world is at war again - at least that possibility has been minimised by one country. Now, if only we could deal with Iran and North Korea

I don't know what you're smoking, but you gotta share if you can actually equate the Hitlerian war machine build-up of the 1930s to anything Saddam could have done. You honestly think Saddam could have built anything even remotely resembling the Wehrmacht in six years without anyone noticing? SATELLITES, for pity's sake! Reconnaisance the likes of which nobody in 1936 could have possibly imagined! You're off your meds.

The PRC is also a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. You expect me to believe China would risk losing the vast majority of its lucrative markets to give Saddam a nuke?

You're not just reaching, you've stretched your own arms off and still haven't grasped anything resembling reality.

Such silly liberal ignorance in this thread.
Naturally. We ignore neoconservative bullshit, which is what the case for invading Iraq was based on, as everyone damn well should. As an alternative, we use facts.

No, you're all wrong. There were weapons of mass distraction - uh, destruction - but Saddam destroyed them with no trace, by leaving them in the teleportation buffer until the signals degraded.

At least, that seems to be the only possible explanation.

And he probably burned out the transporter mechanism doing it, so he had to hide in that spider-hole, instead of teleporting himself to some place quiet and relaxing where he could spend is golden years. That must be it.

No, you're all wrong. There were weapons of mass distraction - uh, destruction - but Saddam destroyed them with no trace, by leaving them in the teleportation buffer until the signals degraded.

At least, that seems to be the only possible explanation.

unfortunatly for saddam, he never realized that a transporter device, one that can turn matter to energy, and then back into matter, would be the most powerful WMD ever conceived, considering it would have 100% energy conversion, and even the most powerful hydrogen bombs have about a 2% matter to energy conversion.

unfortunatly for saddam, he never realized that a transporter device, one that can turn matter to energy, and then back into matter, would be the most powerful WMD ever conceived, considering it would have 100% energy conversion, and even the most powerful hydrogen bombs have about a 2% matter to energy conversion.

D'oh!

Such silly liberal ignorance in this thread.

And really, folks, that's all the NeoCons and their media lapdogs can say anymore. They just repeat the word "liberal", blame any Clinton they can, and say things over and over like they were true.

Okay, okay, I'll bite. Which "silly liberal ignorance" is that -- or are you just going to walk in, tag the thread with some two-bit Limbaugh graffiti and never come back? If that's the case, I love the "never come back part." You can keep the graffiti.

And really, folks, that's all the NeoCons and their media lapdogs can say anymore. They just repeat the word "liberal", blame any Clinton they can, and say things over and over like they were true.

Of course. "Liberal" is a swear word to them, just like "fascist" is to Communists (or vice versa).

And really, folks, that's all the NeoCons and their media lapdogs can say anymore. They just repeat the word "liberal", blame any Clinton they can, and say things over and over like they were true.

Okay, okay, I'll bite. Which "silly liberal ignorance" is that -- or are you just going to walk in, tag the thread with some two-bit Limbaugh graffiti and never come back? If that's the case, I love the "never come back part." You can keep the graffiti.

Just more signs that Bushevism will live on past Il Douche's term of office. Tragic isn't it?

Just more signs that Bushevism will live on past Il Douche's term of office. Tragic isn't it?

Mhm. :(

Such silly liberal ignorance in this thread.
Don't get me fucking started on morons like you. Ooooh no.

Then you'll see the SUPER ANGRY YOOTOPIA WHO HAS AN (AT TIMES) IRRATIONAL HATRED OF THE US AND A WILL TO MAKE SWEEPING STATEMENTS!

And I want that even less than you, mainly because my arguments will mainly be composed of the raw elements of rage and prejudice, so you'll take them to pieces in seconds and I'll leave fairly early on in the topic.

Don't get me fucking started on morons like you. Ooooh no.

Then you'll see the SUPER ANGRY YOOTOPIA WHO HAS AN (AT TIMES) IRRATIONAL HATRED OF THE US AND A WILL TO MAKE SWEEPING STATEMENTS!

And I want that even less than you, mainly because my arguments will mainly be composed of the raw elements of rage and prejudice, so you'll take them to pieces in seconds and I'll leave fairly early on in the topic.

*readies the tranquilizer dart gun*

Just more signs that Bushevism will live on past Il Douche's term of office. Tragic isn't it?
Ermm I think the term "liberal" as something vaguely insulting was mainly started in Raegan's time, rather than Bush's, no?

Ermm I think the term "liberal" as something vaguely insulting was mainly started in Raegan's time, rather than Bush's, no?

Maybe, but the willful disregard of reality and the active suppression of dissenting views to such a Bolshevik extreme was refined around Shrub's presidency.

Actually, that would be Fascism with Bush. Communism would be what would happen if 'liberal whackjobs' were in power. More importantly, why are we still arguing this shit? It's over with, the election's soon, let's move on.

Ermm I think the term "liberal" as something vaguely insulting was mainly started in Raegan's time, rather than Bush's, no?

Earlier than that, I'm afraid.

Actually, that would be Fascism with Bush. Communism would be what would happen if 'liberal whackjobs' were in power. More importantly, why are we still arguing this shit? It's over with, the election's soon, let's move on.

Assuming Il Douche doesn't start opening fire on Tehran to make his nuts feel bigger and the U.S. gets left open to a real Al-Qaeda strike because of the increased draw on the National Guard resulting from such.

Actually, that would be Fascism with Bush. Communism would be what would happen if 'liberal whackjobs' were in power. More importantly, why are we still arguing this shit? It's over with, the election's soon, let's move on.

And do what? This is the most fun a lot of us have on any given day. Besides, as long as That Man is in the White House, I feel obliged to point out his deficiencies. So there.:p

And he probably burned out the transporter mechanism doing it, so he had to hide in that spider-hole, instead of teleporting himself to some place quiet and relaxing where he could spend is golden years. That must be it.

The Saddam in the spider hole was in fact the Good Saddam from the alternate reality, dragged through a tear in the fabric of space time by Evil Saddam's vapourising of WMD with his teleporter device.

Actually, that would be Fascism with Bush. Communism would be what would happen if 'liberal whackjobs' were in power. More importantly, why are we still arguing this shit? It's over with, the election's soon, let's move on.

Because it's a political debate forum? duh?

The Saddam in the spider hole was in fact the Good Saddam from the alternate reality, dragged through a tear in the fabric of space time by Evil Saddam's vapourising of WMD with his teleporter device.

Oh nooooooo! :eek:

Yes, I agree with the OP it is ridiculous. It is so ridiculous people keep saying "We went into Iraq because Saddam Hussein had WMDs!"

Ok lets just say, for argument's sake, he DID Have WMDs. It would not matter overall because many nations have WMDs, many unstable nations have WMDs, and if you look at how many missing nuclear warheads there are from the Former Soviet Union you will see how many are possibly on the world arms black market.

Yes, I agree with the OP it is ridiculous. It is so ridiculous people keep saying "We went into Iraq because Saddam Hussein had WMDs!"

Ok lets just say, for argument's sake, he DID Have WMDs. It would not matter overall because many nations have WMDs, many unstable nations have WMDs, and if you look at how many missing nuclear warheads there are from the Former Soviet Union you will see how many are possibly on the world arms black market.

It's only a big deal when Brown People have nukes.

Ermm I think the term "liberal" as something vaguely insulting was mainly started in Raegan's time, rather than Bush's, no?
It's happening in the UK too now, tanks to the sustained campaign of the Daily Wail.

Gauthier=

Just as a note, Aerion does NOT equal Aryan, most of my friends in RL are black.

Or if you meant when Iw as saying many nations have WMDs, yea I guess that might be a point too but then many races have WMDs.

Gauthier=

Just as a note, Aerion does NOT equal Aryan, most of my friends in RL are black.

Or if you meant when Iw as saying many nations have WMDs, yea I guess that might be a point too but then many races have WMDs.

The United States populace makes a bigger deal out of any country that has nukes and isn't made of up of a caucasian majority and/or it doesn't suck U.S. genetalia. India and Pakistan of course at least pay lip service to America and most Westerners think they're only going to nuke the shit out of each other anyways.

Actually, that would be Fascism with Bush. Communism would be what would happen if 'liberal whackjobs' were in power. More importantly, why are we still arguing this shit? It's over with, the election's soon, let's move on.

The election? You honestly see any kind of hope or relief from this partisan horseshit ome the election? In 2008, we'll choose -- again -- from between two people from two parties trying to separate themselves from each other, when in reality, the election will have been bought and paid for long before the election actually happens. If you think the puppet on the left shares your ideals, or the puppet on the right does, you're forgetting that both puppets are connected to the same pair of hands.

NPR is reporting that this year's election will cost the nominees something like $100 million. What would the founders think of that? When you need that much cash to finance a legitimate run for the office, you have to either be so insanely rich yourself that you're chronically out of touch with the vast majority of the nation or otherwise you're beholden to those "benefactors" who financed your campaign.

Bill Hicks had it right: "I think that when someone wins the election, they take him down to a small room in the basement of the White House, and in that room is a movie projector and a screen. The guys who are really in charge then turn on the projector, and it turns out that they're showing you film of the Kennedy assassination, but from an angle that NOBODY has ever seen before. The film ends, and one of the guys says, "any questions?" And the answer is "just what my agenda's gonna be...".

So in 2008, I'm going to stay home on Election Day. Those of you voting will have nothing to complain about. I know it's popular to say that if you don't vote, you can't complain, but it's the other way around. The guy screws up, and I can complain because I refused to vote for any of the thieves, lawyers, or other fevered egos. So, as Carlin said, you and I will both be masturbating on Election Day. The difference is, when I'm done, I'll have a little something to show for it.

Nah. Actually, I probably will vote. Dammit.

Oh nooooooo! :eek:

Even now, his massive arsenal has allowed convicted necrophile Cheney to become US president on the crest of a war mongering fever. Hes started to dismantle the US health service to pay for various evil projects, including the School of Nun Raping in Fort Benny.

So in 2008, I'm going to stay home on Election Day. Those of you voting will have nothing to complain about. I know it's popular to say that if you don't vote, you can't complain, but it's the other way around. The guy screws up, and I can complain because I refused to vote for any of the thieves, lawyers, or other fevered egos. So, as Carlin said, you and I will both be masturbating on Election Day. The difference is, when I'm done, I'll have a little something to show for it.

Nah. Actually, I probably will vote. Dammit.

And remember, Venezuelans who boycotted elections have nobody but themselves to blame for Crazy Hugo's Rule by Decree.

It's happening in the UK too now, tanks to the sustained campaign of the Daily Wail.

I thought that was just a fringe paper?

It's only a big deal when Brown People have nukes.

Let's see ...


United Parcel Service has nukes?!?!?! :eek:
Can you imagine if ex-FEMA Director Michael Brown had nukes?
That's right, they should just hush up and provide us with cheap labor like they're supposed to.
If the countries of Brown People are so morally superior, why do they even want nukes?


Did I miss anyone? :p

oh, and [/sarcasm]

Fixed.

Thanks, I was just skimming an article to check that I had all the facts right.

Just face the facts: We based our war intelligence on an alcoholic liar, a forgery, metal tubing, and old intelligence from Desert Storm and even before. The Al-Qaeda links as well as liberating the Iraqi people are just bullshit attempts to rationalize the war after the pre-war intelligence imploded.

Just face the facts: We based our war intelligence on an alcoholic liar, a forgery, metal tubing, and old intelligence from Desert Storm and even before. The Al-Qaeda links as well as liberating the Iraqi people are just bullshit attempts to rationalize the war after the pre-war intelligence imploded.

So? Why do you hate America and freedom and your mother so much? Ann Coulter weeps bitter tears for you. :D

Ann Coulter weeps bitter tears for you. :D


Fit her better she stopped promoting Anorexic muslim-hate as a lifestyle choice....

I didn;t support the war originally, and the absence of WMD's simply reinforces the illegitimacy of the war, given its use as a pretext for invasion.

I am astounded that, even today (Feb. 14, 2007), I was told by a local neoconservative that "if you're a liberal, Iraq had no WMD's. If you're a realist, there were enough chemical weapons to knock off half of Israel".

Such mind-blowing ignorance simply astounded me, and I immediately moved to write an article that set the record straight once and for all for those of us who are still operating under the idea that Iraq had WMD's. An excerpt of this article follows:
-----------------------
The Duelfer Report is the final report that was issued to the United States Congress in September of 2004 by the Iraq Survey Group. I.S.G. was the group charged by the Coalition with destroying Saddam Hussein's stockpiles of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons. It was composed of Americans, Australians, and British...though the U.S. provided the bulk of the personnel and support.

The report is quite lengthy, but the CIA was kind enough to condense the findings for relatively easy review (the report is available at https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/index.html).

The Key Findings include this important statement: "Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq's WMD ability -which was essentially destroyed in 1991- after sanctions were removed and Iraq's economy stabilized." Furthermore, the report states that IRAN was the principle motivator of this policy; all top Iraqi officials in Saddam's regime considered Iran to be Iraq's most dangerous enemy (this is hardly surprising considering the incredibly bloody war fought between the two nations several years prior).

Neoconservatives have made much ado about the discovery of chemical weapons in Iraq. Yet the Duelfer Report states: "While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, I.S.G. judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its' undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991." The handful of chemical shells discovered by I.S.G. had degraded (they were apparently leftovers from the Iraq-Iran War), and were not useful as weapons anymore. They did not present a serious threat to the United States or its' allies.

Nor did Iraq have anything approaching a nuclear weapon. ISG discovered that Iraqi efforts to design an atomic weapon were well underway, but stopped in 1991. Initially Saddam Hussein attempted to conceal the program, but aggressive inspections by U.N. personnel and a growing fear of military retaliation (should the program be discovered) resulted in Saddam terminating the program after 1991. Iraq's intellectual talent dedicated to the development of such weapons began to decay steadily after that date.

Nor did Saddam have access to biological weapons. Although (as with the other programs) Iraq initially attempted to preserve as much of the BW infrastructure as possible, inspections made this policy increasingly dangerous and difficult to maintain. I.S.G. ruled that, although not conclusive, Iraq appeared to have destroyed its' undeclared BW stockpiles in 1991 and 1992, and in 1995 (with the Iraqi economy in crisis), the Regime abandoned the program. The Regime's reasons for abandoning the program were several, but it appears that Hussein was most concerned with the potential for further action against him should the program be uncovered.

In conclusion, I.S.G. essentially rules that after 1991, Saddam Hussein's stockpiles of weapons were effectively liquidated. Hussein's priority was apparently the survival of his regime, and when the weapons became a short-term threat to that regime, he relinquished them. After 1991, all of Iraq's WMD programs began a definite decay, and Hussein was in no position to immediately revive them. The economic sanctions imposed on Hussein's country effectively crippled his ability to produce weapons. Hussein showed great interest in resuming the programs, but dictated that the removal of U.N. economic sanctions were a priority before such reinvestment could take place.

In 2005, ISG published an additional document which addressed some other questions that had arisen. The conclusions were as follows:

-Although they could not conclude it with 100% certainty, I.S.G. judged that it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria (or elsewhere) took place.
-I.S.G. concluded that "any remaining chemical munitions in Iraq do not pose a militarily significant threat ... ISG has not found evidence to indicate that Iraq did not destroy its BW weapons or bulk agents"
-I.S.G. stated that, "Iraq’s remaining chemical and biological physical infrastructure does not pose a proliferation concern".


-----------------

Neocons just got OWNED! (http://neocons.justgotowned.com)

Neocons just got OWNED! (http://neocons.justgotowned.com)

:D :D

Neocons just got OWNED! (http://neocons.justgotowned.com)

lol