GUIDE TO KEY FINDINGS
With respect to nuclear and chemical weapons, the extent of the
threat was largely knowable at the time. (p. 47)
Iraq’s nuclear program had been dismantled and there was no convincing evidence
of its reconstitution. (p. 47)
Regarding chemical weapons, UNSCOM discovered that Iraqi nerve agents
had lost most of their lethality as early as 1991. Operations Desert Storm and
Desert Fox, and UN inspections and sanctions effectively destroyed Iraq’s
large-scale chemical weapon production capabilities. For both reasons, it appears
that thereafter Iraq focused on preserving a latent, dual-use capability,
rather than on weapons production. (p. 47–48)
The uncertainties were much greater with regard to biological weapons.
However, the real threat lay in what could be achieved in the future rather than in
what had been produced in the past or existed in the present. (p. 48)
The biological weapons program may also have been converted to dual-use
facilities designed to quickly start weapons production in time of war, rather
than making and storing these weapons in advance. (p. 48)
Iraq’s WMD programs represented a long-term threat that could not
be ignored. They did not, however, pose an immediate threat to the
United States, to the region, or to global security. (p. 47)
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace | 7
The missile program appears to have been the one program in active
development in 2002. (p. 48) Iraq was expanding its capability to build missiles
whose ranges exceeded UN limits.
It is unlikely that Iraq could have destroyed, hidden, or sent out of the
country the hundreds of tons of chemical and biological weapons,
dozens of Scud missiles and facilities engaged in the ongoing production
of chemical and biological weapons that offi cials claimed
were present without the United States detecting some sign of this activity
before, during, or after the major combat period of the war. (p. 55)
How much radioactive and biological material have been lost and
whether they have fallen into the wrong hands remain crucial unknowns.
(p. 58–59)
Prior to 2002, the intelligence community appears to have overestimated
the chemical and biological weapons in Iraq but had a generally
accurate picture of the nuclear and missile programs. (p. 50)
The dramatic shift between prior intelligence assessments and the October
2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), together with the creation of
an independent intelligence entity at the Pentagon and other steps, suggest
that the intelligence community began to be unduly infl uenced by
policymakers’ views sometime in 2002. (p. 50)
There was and is no solid evidence of a cooperative relationship between
Saddam’s government and Al Qaeda. (p. 48)
There was no evidence to support the claim that Iraq would have transferred
WMD to Al Qaeda and much evidence to counter it. (p. 48)
The notion that any government would give its principal security assets to
people it could not control in order to achieve its own political aims is
highly dubious. (p. 49)
Today, the most likely source of a nuclear terrorist threat would be
from theft or purchase of fi ssile material or tactical nuclear weapons
from poorly guarded stockpiles in Russia and other former Soviet
states, including Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine. The security
of Pakistan’s nuclear assets, including technology and know how, is
also a major concern. (p. 50)
Administration offi cials systematically misrepresented the threat from
Iraq’s WMD and ballistic missile programs, beyond the intelligence
failures noted above, by:
Treating nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons as a single “WMD threat.”
The confl ation of three distinct threats, very different in the danger they pose,
distorted the cost/benefi t analysis of the war. (p. 52)
Insisting without evidence—yet treating as a given truth—that Saddam
Hussein would give whatever WMD he possessed to terrorists. (p. 52)
Routinely dropping caveats, probabilities, and expressions of uncertainty present
in intelligence assessments from public statements. (p. 53)
Misrepresenting inspectors’ fi ndings in ways that turned threats from minor to
dire. (p. 53)
While worst case planning is valid and vital, acting on worst case assumptions
is neither safe nor wise. (p. 54)
The assertion that the threat that became visible on 9/11 invalidated
deterrence against states does not stand up to close scrutiny. (p. 57)
Saddam’s responses to international pressure and international weakness
from the 1991 war onward show that while unpredictable he was not
undeterrable. (p. 57)
The UN inspection process appears to have been much more successful than
recognized before the war. Nine months of exhaustive searches by the U.S.
and coalition forces suggest that inspectors were actually in the process of fi nding
what was there. Thus, the choice was never between war and doing nothing about
Iraq’s WMD. (p. 55)
In addition to inspections, a combination of international constraints—
sanctions, procurement investigations, and the export/import control
mechanism—also appears to have been considerably more effective
than was thought. (p. 56)
The knowledge, prior experience in Iraq, relationships with Iraqi scientists
and offi cials, and credibility of UNMOVIC experts represent a vital resource
that has been ignored when it should be being fully exploited.(p. 51)
To reconstruct an accurate history of Iraq’s WMD programs, the data
from the seven years of UNSCOM/IAEA inspections are absolutely
essential. The involvement of the inspectors and scientists who compiled the
more-than-30-million-page record is needed to effectively mine it. (p. 56)
Considering all the costs and benefi ts, there were at least two options
clearly preferable to a war undertaken without international support:
allowing the UNMOVIC/IAEA inspections to continue until obstructed
or completed, or imposing a tougher program of “coercive inspections” backed by
a specially designed international force. (p. 59)
Even a war successful on other counts could leave behind three signifi cant
WMD threats: lost material, “loose” scientists, and the message that
only nuclear weapons could protect a state from foreign invasion.(p. 58)
The National Security Strategy’s new doctrine of preemptive military action
is actually a loose standard for preventive war under the cloak of
legitimate preemption. (p. 60)
In the Iraqi case, the world’s three best intelligence services proved unable
to provide the accurate information necessary for acting in the
absence of imminent threat. (p. 61)
Sometimes it's hard to fathom how some people never seem to catch on to the truth before their own eyes in favor of ideologies.
Clearly by now, anyone who still believes Saddam was the threat Bush made him out to be will never believe any different unfortunately. If this had been a court of law on the charges Bush leveled, S.H. would have clearly walked a free man.
I guess when you're the head of a superpower, it matters little if you can prove the accusations you levy.
Because hindsight is 20/20. Saddam was elusive and manipulative. Wanted the world to think he was a mighty force. Having WMD meant the world would fear him. We called his bluff.
When you look back you see a much clearer window. Back then the window was very dirty and we couldn't see what was on the other side. We saw only what Saddam, and the exiles wanted us to see.
It's like the things you do as a kid. You look back and say, if only I knew then what I know now. Same goes in this situation.
Going after Saddam was the right thing to do. WMD was a good reason to go if it was there. All the intelligence and the UN said it was.
Many are thanking the US for ousting Saddam. If the threat of WMD was not there then Saddam would still be in power milking the world out of billions of dollars.
Ron, I agree that Saddam was elusive yes that bears much merit. However, Bush, the UN, or anyone else never had conclusive proof that Saddam had such weapons. The UN’s position was they did not know one way or the other.
It was Bush who categorically stated that Saddam conclusively had these weapons, we knew where they were, and we were going in to get them.
After not having inspectors in the country for a few years, the world didn’t understand the hastiness of this invasion. Inspectors were in the country and inspected every facility the US directed them to and found nothing. It was Bush who refused to accept any other results but those of procurement.
Regardless of its outcome, good or bad, it still doesn’t justify reasons that were proven to be absolutely wrong. It is the vision of the neocons to spread a new world order of democracy no matter if they can justify it or not.
It was the illusions of corporate utopias in a democratic Iraq that help facilitate this invasion. So why is it such a wonder that Bush is pushing so hard for this democracy for the brutally oppressed Iraqis?
It was up to Saddam to prove that he didn't have the WMD. The burden of proof was on him, as per Resolution 1441. Since he refused to work with the UN and comply with R-1441 he suffered serious consequences.
If you remember Colin Powell went before the UN Security Councel and present intelligence. What did Saddam do when presented the evidence? Continued to obstruct the inspectors as he did for 12 years.
If he would have opened up Iraq for proper inspection it wouldn't have taken 12 years. Look at what the Iraqi Survey Group did. In just months or maybe a little over a year. They verified that Saddam didn't have any WMD.
Hmmmm, yes it is. But it seems that there are a lot of people who have forgotten about it. Especially all the democrats who have come out saying Bush lied and everyone in the administration lied.
The question should be Ron is "if you remember". You call what Colin Powell presented evidence? All we saw was pictures from space accusing Saddam of everything we saw as a weapons program. Every time we saw a truck near a building it was presented as proof Saddam was doing something illegal when in actuality it wasn’t. Show me one thing Colin Powell presented that was proof of Saddam’s procurement of illegal weapons. It was nothing more than a dog and pony show.
As for inspectors, they were doing their job and Bush kicked them out, or don’t you remember? At the US’s urging they inspected Saddam’s palace, suspect mobile labs, drone airplanes, reconstituted weapons buildings, decontamination trucks, rocket launch pads, etc all before Bush kicked inspectors out. They tested them all and found nothing. That’s quite a feat if you’ve just stopped developing chemicals.
Blix, after not being in the country for years asked for more inspectors to do the job and Bush flatly refused. That was completely unreasonable to demand inspectors into Iraq, then refuse to accept their findings. Blix’s words almost a month before we invaded was that Saddam was being proactive in the search or do you not remember that either?
SH was completely contained. He was no threat to no one at the time we invaded. That’s exactly why he was routed in the battle. Why the hastiness in invading? Because with every passing moment, inspectors were proving Bush wrong and he had to go in or lose his momentum.
I guess all it takes is to levy the accusations and that was enough for you to accept that it was proof because none of it was convincing and that’s exactly why it turned into a blame game afterward.
oneofpeace said this in post #10 : The question should be Ron is "if you remember". You call what Colin Powell presented evidence? All we saw was pictures from space accusing Saddam of everything we saw as a weapons program. Every time we saw a truck near a building it was presented as proof Saddam was doing something illegal when in actuality it wasn’t. Show me one thing Colin Powell presented that was proof of Saddam’s procurement of illegal weapons. It was nothing more than a dog and pony show.
Funny how you disagreed with the rest of the world, High officials in the US, UK, Germany, Russia, France the UN etc like somehow you had better information. All those countries agreed with the intelligence, they disagreed on what to do about it.
quote:
As for inspectors, they were doing their job and Bush kicked them out, or don’t you remember? At the US’s urging they inspected Saddam’s palace, suspect mobile labs, drone airplanes, reconstituted weapons buildings, decontamination trucks, rocket launch pads, etc all before Bush kicked inspectors out. They tested them all and found nothing. That’s quite a feat if you’ve just stopped developing chemicals.
They did their job until 1998 then weren't welcome back. There was a lot of folks that said that Saddam used that time to reconstitute his programs. Folks who defected, who were part of the regime and spies. (not US or UK spies tho).
quote:
Blix, after not being in the country for years asked for more inspectors to do the job and Bush flatly refused. That was completely unreasonable to demand inspectors into Iraq, then refuse to accept their findings. Blix’s words almost a month before we invaded was that Saddam was being proactive in the search or do you not remember that either?
It was not up to Bush to approve inspectors, Blix worked for the UN not the US. I don't see that Blix didn't get everything he wanted except for more time which at the time seemed pointless becuase Saddam refused to cooperate.
quote:
SH was completely contained. He was no threat to no one at the time we invaded. That’s exactly why he was routed in the battle. Why the hastiness in invading? Because with every passing moment, inspectors were proving Bush wrong and he had to go in or lose his momentum.
You can say that now but you could not say it then. Nobody knew exactly what Saddams situation was.
quote:
I guess all it takes is to levy the accusations and that was enough for you to accept that it was proof because none of it was convincing and that’s exactly why it turned into a blame game afterward.
Look the UNSCOM inspectors said that they couldn't verify that all of Saddams chemical and biological weapons were gone and that there should have been tons unaccounted for. Saddam didn't show that it was gone and Saddam didn't work with UNMOVIC well enough to prove that it was gone.
As I said Hindsight is 20/20, we can look back and say "We shoulda', woulda', coulda' " but at the time it was the right thing to do. Even the majority of the Democrats agreed.
Ron wrote
Funny how you disagreed with the rest of the world, High officials in the US, UK, Germany, Russia, France the UN etc like somehow you had better information. All those countries agreed with the intelligence, they disagreed on what to do about it.
The information was presented to the UN. The countries you mentioned above had nothing conclusive and reported info from so called informants about what Saddam had possession of. None of them pinpointed where any materials were actively being made or harbored. That is fact.
As for the UN, their position was that it was inconclusive whether Saddam had them or not. It was Bush tooting the loudest horn saying Saddam had them and we knew where they were.
quote:
They did their job until 1998 then weren't welcome back. There was a lot of folks that said that Saddam used that time to reconstitute his programs. Folks who defected, who were part of the regime and spies. (not US or UK spies tho).
You’re making some of my case for me. First, if inspectors didn’t inspect for over 5 yrs, why was it such an unreasonable request of Blix to ask for more inspectors and reasonable time for them to do the job? After all, we gave them all our suspected sites and inspectors inspected them and found nothing. What was the urgency?
Secondly, as you should well know, there were defectors that said Saddam’s program was destroyed as well but they somehow didn’t make the cut.
quote:
It was not up to Bush to approve inspectors, Blix worked for the UN not the US. I don't see that Blix didn't get everything he wanted except for more time which at the time seemed pointless becuase Saddam refused to cooperate.
Then why go to the UN in the first place? You can’t quote UN resolutions then say they didn’t’ count because they didn’t go with our agenda. Blix stated in early March that Saddam was proactive in the search and he needed more inspectors to search Iraq. You see that as pointless?
I agree, Saddam initially refused to cooperate but weeks before Bush gave the command to invade, this was no longer the case.
quote:
You can say that now but you could not say it then. Nobody knew exactly what Saddams situation was.
Ron, inspectors were in his country. The world was watching him. You don’t think that was containment? So you believed that Saddam was still capable of launching an illegal attack under these circumstances?
quote:
Look the UNSCOM inspectors said that they couldn't verify that all of Saddams chemical and biological weapons were gone and that there should have been tons unaccounted for. Saddam didn't show that it was gone and Saddam didn't work with UNMOVIC well enough to prove that it was gone.
As I said Hindsight is 20/20, we can look back and say "We shoulda', woulda', coulda' " but at the time it was the right thing to do. Even the majority of the Democrats agreed.
Congress agreed because America was scared into accepting Bush’s version of what was going on in Iraq. This was more than hindsight Ron because many were saying Bush was too hasty and didn’t provide “irrefutable proof” as he said he would that Saddam indeed had harbors these weapons.
I agree, Saddam should have been more forth coming. For whatever reason it was stupid for him not to. However we knew that Saddam never made any more and if he was still in possession of these agents from the early 80’s, they were useless.
Facts are Bush wanted to invade Iraq and his mind was made up long before he presented it to the US and world. Sept 11 was just the vehicle to get all of us to accept it. He used fear period and it worked.
In light of there being no WMD there, I can’t see how you still insist it was the right thing to do. Maybe it was but NOT the way Bush went about it. He was way to eager to invade Iraq and was completely unreasonable to any other avenue.
Colin Powell expressed this too Bush and he was shunned. He was the only one willing to speak his mind. If you somehow believe Bush was moved to invade Iraq purely on the prospects of terrorism, you are already on the wrong foundation for accurately debating the facts.
…who waste their breath desperately pounding sand regarding WMD (Whining of Mousey Democrats)…
Naysayers Tight-lipped Since Success of Iraq Vote
By James G. Lakely
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Skeptics of President Bush's attempt to bring democracy to Iraq have been largely silent since Iraqis enthusiastically turned out for Sunday's elections.
Billionaire Bush-basher George Soros and left-wing filmmaker Michael Moore were among critics of the administration's Iraq policy who had no comment after millions of Iraqis went to the polls in their nation's first free elections in decades.
The Carter Center determined that the security situation in Iraq was going to be too dangerous to send election monitors, so the Atlanta-based human rights organization founded by former President Jimmy Carter posted its personnel in neighboring Jordan.
Despite widespread predictions of spectacular terrorist attacks on election day in Iraq, fewer than 50 were killed, and the 60 percent turnout for the elections was much higher than many predicted.
Asked whether the Carter Center had a comment on the election, spokeswoman Kay Torrance said: "We wouldn't have any 'yea' or 'nay' statement on Iraq."
Mr. Carter told NBC's "Today" show in September that he was confident the elections would not take place. "I personally do not believe they're going to be ready for the election in January ... because there's no security there," he said.
Mr. Soros, the Open Society Institute founder who contributed millions of dollars to groups seeking to prevent Mr. Bush's re-election, had denounced as a "sham" the administration's plans for a democratic Iraq.
"To claim that we are invading Iraq for the sake of establishing democracy is a sham, and the rest of the world sees it as such," Mr. Soros said in a Washington speech in March 2003, adding that "the trouble goes much deeper."
"It is not merely that the Bush administration's policies may be wrong, it is that they are wrong," Mr. Soros said in the speech. "Because we are unquestionably the most powerful, [the Bush administration claims] we have earned the right to impose our will on the rest of the world."
Mr. Soros' Web site (www.georgesoros.com) has no reference to the Iraqi elections. Its latest comments are in a Jan. 26 op-ed article on what Mr. Soros calls Mr. Bush's "ambitious" second inaugural address.
"Mr. Soros has not released any statements about the elections in Iraq," said Soros spokesman Michael Vachon. "He has been traveling since Sunday on various foundation projects and hasn't had occasion to comment."
Mr. Vachon said Mr. Soros' "position regarding the Bush administration's policies in Iraq and his criticism thereof have been consistent."
In his Jan. 26 article, published in more than 20 newspapers, including the Toronto Globe and Mail, Mr. Soros said he agrees with Mr. Bush's goal to spread democracy around the world, "and [I] have devoted the past 15 years and several billion dollars of my fortune to attaining it," but accused the president of "Orwellian doublespeak."
"Mr. Bush is right to assert that repressive regimes can no longer hide behind a cloak of sovereignty," wrote Mr. Soros, 74, who made his fortune as an international currency trader. "But intervention in other states' internal affairs must be legitimate."
There has been no comment since the Iraq elections from Mr. Moore, the Academy Award-winning filmmaker who characterized the Iraqi insurgents as "Minutemen," and predicted "they will win."
The last posting from Mr. Moore on his Web site (www.michaelmoore.com) is dated Jan. 10 and concerns "Fahrenheit 9/11" being named best dramatic movie in the People's Choice Awards. An e-mail to Mr. Moore requesting comment was not returned.
On the day before the elections, Mr. Moore featured a link to a column in the New York Times with the headline, "A Sinking Sensation of Parallels between Iraq and Vietnam." On the day after the elections, Mr. Moore linked to a story in the left-wing Nation magazine titled "Occupation Thwarts Democracy."
Moorewatch.com, a site dedicated to countering the filmmaker's political statements, knocked Mr. Moore for "failing to acknowledge [the Iraqi people's] achievement."
"I find it telling that the man who has lamented such great concern for the kite-flying, tea-sipping Iraqi people featured in 'Fahrenheit 9/11' can't be bothered to string together a few words of admiration for those same people who braved the threat of death to cast their votes this past weekend," the anti-Moore Web site said. "It seems Moore only admires the Iraqi people when they validate his agenda of hating George Bush."
Some administration critics, however, saw the Iraqi elections as reason to revise their opinion of Mr. Bush.
Chicago Sun-Times columnist Mark Brown, who has consistently opposed Mr. Bush and the war in Iraq, wrote for yesterday's edition that "it's hard to swallow," but "what if it turns out Bush was right, and we were wrong?"
The Chicago columnist wrote that he was struck by "television coverage from Iraq that showed long lines of people risking their lives by turning out to vote, honest looks of joy on so many of their faces."
"If it turns out Bush was right all along, this is going to require some serious penance," Mr. Brown wrote.
Look, I am not convinced yet that there weren't WMD's.
There are reports of movements of vehicles out of Iraq to Syria and Russia right before the war.
Who in the world knows?
And if they do, they're not telling.
I am certain no one can bring up satellite images of that and the analysis of these images over the internet.
If I may.
The New York Times has already edited an enthusiast article about the success of an election carried out in a country whose population was experiencing terrorism. It was the 4th of september 1967 in South Vietnam. More than 80% of the South Vietnamese went to the pools.
The chi'its have participated massively - right. But with pictures of Ayatollah Sistani everywhere claiming explicitely "Obey to allah" in order to enjoin the voters to go to the pools.
The Sunnis did not participate a lot. The Kurds chose lists favoring their territory's autonomy.
Democracy ? Yes. But used by those people to install an Iran-friendly chi'it theocracy in Baghdad. With a major risk to see the country heading to a civil war - sort of lebanonisation of Iraq.
The WMD argument continues to hang around for two reasons: it is and was obviously the dumbest use of propoganda a government has used in years as pretext for military action (and if Iraq had been the cake-walk promised then this wouldn't have mattered, which is how I'm sure the Bush government and Blair imagined it would have panned out) and secondly, it is also useful to keep the idea alive if Bush has plans to invade anyone else, and there are people on this forum who would accept they were moved and so I presume accept them being used again as pretext for military action and invasion of another country.
sowhatsthetruth said this in post #14 : Look, I am not convinced yet that there weren't WMD's.
There are reports of movements of vehicles out of Iraq to Syria and Russia right before the war.
Who in the world knows?
And if they do, they're not telling.
I am certain no one can bring up satellite images of that and the analysis of these images over the internet.
SWTT wrote
Look, I am not convinced yet that there weren't WMD's.
There are reports of movements of vehicles out of Iraq to Syria and Russia right before the war.
Why am I not surprised? It would seem that none of you would accept anything less, even with the truth stirring you in the snoz.
Look, had Saddam been making or harboring chemicals, UN test equipment would have picked up the particles. This is why Bush tried to initially say that they found chemical agents around some building in Iraq only for that to be proven to be another reach since it was a common compound around the entire country.
So what kind of operation are we running to be accusing Saddam of harboring tons of WMD then allow him to cart them off on trucks across the border without lifting a finger to divert it?
It’s more of the same sad guessing game that got Bush caught into the “tons of WMD” thing. But I have a question for you.
Why is it that OBL is still on the loose and Saddam in jail? Why is it that N. Korea openly says they have nukes and we do nothing? And to cap it off, they’ve just been busted shipping uranium out of N. Korea to Libya.
Doesn’t this constitute exactly what he accused Saddam of? Why no mention of it in his State of the Union?
So we depose Saddam because he could have and say nothing to N. Korea who has, and OBL is still on the loose who did? I don’t claim to have ever split an atom but it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that many of you have swallowed a load of crap and think it’s caviar.
Oneofpeace
Look, like it or not we have to rely on these yahoos for national security.
I am not the typical "follow the party line and believe what they feed us on the airwaves and print" kinda gal.
But think about it.
IF the reports ARE true ( and I know after what we were fed, what can we believe? )
I look at this and think, well they mentioned it briefly a couple of times...and it sure seems that the bullshiit stories are pretty bold and repetitive over the media...and the truth always gets the little tiny byline that *oops* accidentally got out.
If they do have satellite images going to the aforementioned countries, don't you think they'd be working top secret information gathering operations etc etc....and do you think IN THE NAME OF NATIONAL SECURITY that information would be public fodder for people like you and me to discuss on a discussion board like this?
If those countries are housing WMD's there has to be a period of investigation and plans to a) either destroy these weapons or b) contain the situation so that they are not used.
You have no clue how much goes on in situations like this that WE WILL NEVER KNOW ABOUT and are probably better off not knowing.
Well SWTT, we agree on this, that we are told what they want us to know and little more. It doesn’t always mean the truth doesn’t seep out occasionally.
I don’t pretend to know the top secret 411 of what’s going on behind the scenes. However, we only have the words of our President, which to some seem to bare little resemblance to the truth these days.
Bush has used WMD among other things to invade Iraq. He said Saddam didn’t comply with our sponsored resolution to let inspectors into Iraq. He said Saddam sought uranium from Africa, and he said if SH ever procured such weapons, he would pass them on to terrorists. Let’s not mention the brutality of his own people.
It was Bush that took up the charge to put Iraq back in the forefront with demands of compliance, however we found out that Saddam had nothing. Now we have N. Korea. Let’s talk about what we do know.
First, Kim Jung kicked out UN inspectors, declared he had nukes and threatened the US to do anything about it. He fired up his nuclear reactors and now we have “irrefutable proof” that he shipped uranium to Libya. I won’t even get into how he brutalizes his own people.
Now if KJ shipped uranium to Libya that is a direct violation of international law. It is highly probable that he passed uranium on to other nations that was on the US sponsored terrorist list. Yet, there is no urgency, no mention of it, no pressuring of the UN, no US sponsored resolutions. In fact, Bush hasn’t publicly mentioned NK in how long?
NK is transparently a greater danger than Iraq ever was. I don’t get it….unless you have an agenda you’re not mentioning. So who can blame people for seeing the words differ from the deeds of this administration? How do we take solace in deposing a leader who bared little threat knowing that this other “axis of evil” has procured nuclear weapons and is distributing them around the world and we’re doing little to nothing in pressuring him into compliance?
The inspectors verified that he had them in the early 1990s and witnessed the destruction of some but not all.
Since the inspectors didn't veryify that they were all destroyed in the 1990's then they must have still existed.
Where did they go?
Let's not forget that Saddam buried everything including entire Jet Aircraft.
Also there is intelligence that he shipped it all out.
Now I'm not saying it was there or not and I don't know either way.
One sure thing is that Saddam was a tyrant and needed to be dealt with. He used the Oil for 'Food Progarm as his own little bank. He let his people starve or remain just above starvation by giving them a little rations every month while the grain from the Oil for Food program went bad in wearhouses. Anyone who went against him was tortured or killed or their family tortured or killed.
One little school girl who spoke out against him in her school had her uncle imprisoned and tortured then murdered.
He employeed people with interesting nicknames like Dr. Germ, and Dr. Death. He murdered his son-in-law for going against him.
Murder was a way of life with Saddam. He got into office by murdering the opposition. Once he took office he took the opposing party out and murdered them.
Let's not forget that Saddam had elections too. The ballot was much simpler.
Saddam for president
No Yes
And the yes was pre-filled so the voter didn't have to go to the effort of marking the ballot.
Not my idea of a world leader folks.
The WMD may not have been there. Ok maybe not, but I'm glad and the majority of Iraqi's are glad that he's gone.
Ron Ackerman said this in post #22 : Here is my take,
There once was WMD in Iraq.
Saddam had WMD and used them.
The inspectors verified that he had them in the early 1990s and witnessed the destruction of some but not all.
Since the inspectors didn't veryify that they were all destroyed in the 1990's then they must have still existed.
Where did they go?
Let's not forget that Saddam buried everything including entire Jet Aircraft.
Also there is intelligence that he shipped it all out.
Now I'm not saying it was there or not and I don't know either way.
One sure thing is that Saddam was a tyrant and needed to be dealt with. He used the Oil for 'Food Progarm as his own little bank. He let his people starve or remain just above starvation by giving them a little rations every month while the grain from the Oil for Food program went bad in wearhouses. Anyone who went against him was tortured or killed or their family tortured or killed.
One little school girl who spoke out against him in her school had her uncle imprisoned and tortured then murdered.
He employeed people with interesting nicknames like Dr. Germ, and Dr. Death. He murdered his son-in-law for going against him.
Murder was a way of life with Saddam. He got into office by murdering the opposition. Once he took office he took the opposing party out and murdered them.
Let's not forget that Saddam had elections too. The ballot was much simpler.
Saddam for president
No Yes
And the yes was pre-filled so the voter didn't have to go to the effort of marking the ballot.
Not my idea of a world leader folks.
The WMD may not have been there. Ok maybe not, but I'm glad and the majority of Iraqi's are glad that he's gone.
May you rot in Hell Saddam Hussein!!!
The WMD are and were a convenient pretext for invasion and occupation of Iraq. They are and were irrelevant as an actual threat. As oneofpeace says, if WMD were the real threat or concern, America would have concentrated on countries with DEFINITE WMD, North Korea or even Pakistan.
Hussein no longer runs Iraq but there is no guarantee that Iraq won't get Hussein mark 2. America did not invade Iraq just to allow Iraqis to determine the kind of democracy they want. Certain things will not be allowed, ie - an aggressive policy towards Israel, any kind of alliance with Iran, etc.
Shortly before Bush proclaimed "democracy" in Iraq, he annouced the US military presense would remain at about 120,000 for at least the next two years. Democracy is not one country controlling another and that is pretty much what America intends to do until a "suitable democracy" is installed in Iraq, one that's beneficial to US interests.
What's happening today is no different to what the British did 100 years ago. They held elections, installed puppets and kings and said they wanted to democratise Iraq while keeping their grubby little hands all over the oil supply.
I think h@ts hit it on the head, especially with the Brits preceding efforts in Iraq. However I must address something Ron.
Do you know how many autocracies are around the world that ruthlessly suppresses their own people? Do you know most of them come to power buy oustings and killings, especially of the preceding leadership or party? What made SH unique in this fashion?
The US never sponsored one piece of legislation before the UN concerning Saddam until he invaded oil rich Kuwait. You must know the atrocities you mentioned above happened during the late 70’s to the early 80’s. Did you know that SH was a CIA informant during the 70’s?
Today we have military bases in autocratic countries and we say nothing about their atrocities against their people.
As for Saddam’s missing WMD, we get this information from SH’s declaration in the 80’s that he created tons of chemicals. Since no one has ever verified they really existed in such large quantities, couldn’t it be plausible that he was lying about them? He was a notorious liar was he not?
But even if he had them, what use were they after so many years? We know he never made any more so we had to convince everyone that he reconstituted his factories by pointing to every building we saw from satellite with trucks parked near them. All of which turned out to be a dog and pony show nothing more.
No one here has any love loss for SH. He was a bastard and got what he deserved. However everyone knew the US wanted him out and we used 9/11 to do it while the culprit responsible is still making videos and reeking havoc and NK silently defies the world by exporting uranium to terror sponsor states and we say nothing.
So why did we invade Iraq again? Because from what we’re being told, it just doesn’t jibe.
The biggest difference in what the british did and what we are doing is that we are letting the Iraqi's choose their leader.
You keep forgetting that it was the UN that put the resolutions on Saddam. Sure part of it was the US's doing but as a whole it was the United Nation(S) Plural, more than one.
quote:
As for Saddam’s missing WMD, we get this information from SH’s declaration in the 80’s that he created tons of chemicals. Since no one has ever verified they really existed in such large quantities, couldn’t it be plausible that he was lying about them? He was a notorious liar was he not?
I guess the over 5000 people of Halabja can't verifiy it because their dead so the WMD must not have existed.
Ron wrote
You keep forgetting that it was the UN that put the resolutions on Saddam. Sure part of it was the US's doing but as a whole it was the United Nation(S) Plural, more than one.
The resolution was sponsored by the US. If we were so worried about those dying, we should have done it when Saddam gassed those people instead of nearly 2 decades later, trying to use it to justify.
quote:
I guess the over 5000 people of Halabja can't verifiy it because their dead so the WMD must not have existed.
Ron, did you read my post or is this another case of seeing what you want to? My quote was:
“Since no one has ever verified they really existed in such large quantities, couldn’t it be plausible that he was lying about them?”
How about a reply to what I posted Ron? My point was that SH appeared to be lying about such large quantities for the same reason he didn’t want the world to know he didn’t have them. And since we know SH never had any active programs since pre Gulf War, there couldn’t have been any solid evidence that he had them.
But even if he did Ron, you think these quantities from the 80’s would actually be affective? If not, why all the urgency?
And you never answered why we’re making no noise about NK.
oneofpeace said this in post #24 : I think h@ts hit it on the head, especially with the Brits preceding efforts in Iraq. However I must address something Ron.
Do you know how many autocracies are around the world that ruthlessly suppresses their own people? Do you know most of them come to power buy oustings and killings, especially of the preceding leadership or party? What made SH unique in this fashion?
The US never sponsored one piece of legislation before the UN concerning Saddam until he invaded oil rich Kuwait. You must know the atrocities you mentioned above happened during the late 70’s to the early 80’s. Did you know that SH was a CIA informant during the 70’s?
Today we have military bases in autocratic countries and we say nothing about their atrocities against their people.
As for Saddam’s missing WMD, we get this information from SH’s declaration in the 80’s that he created tons of chemicals. Since no one has ever verified they really existed in such large quantities, couldn’t it be plausible that he was lying about them? He was a notorious liar was he not?
But even if he had them, what use were they after so many years? We know he never made any more so we had to convince everyone that he reconstituted his factories by pointing to every building we saw from satellite with trucks parked near them. All of which turned out to be a dog and pony show nothing more.
No one here has any love loss for SH. He was a bastard and got what he deserved. However everyone knew the US wanted him out and we used 9/11 to do it while the culprit responsible is still making videos and reeking havoc and NK silently defies the world by exporting uranium to terror sponsor states and we say nothing.
So why did we invade Iraq again? Because from what we’re being told, it just doesn’t jibe.
Exactly.
Also, the U.S. armed Saddam against Iran... not to mention the Taliban against the Soviets.
Why Iraq and not NK? Isn't it obvious? Even you two know the answer to that question.
Terrorism isn't centered in Korea. It's the middle-east. A democratic society in the center of that barbaric part of the world is the first step in recognizing Islam and Arabs as the most dangerous societies on the planet. It needs to start there and it needs to start now.
Now you will see them all scrambling to straighten up and get their governments neanderthal views of the world revamped. Every Arab and Muslim who has not had freedom is watching this transition in Iraq. Like it or not, many will stand up for their human rights and the long road to democracy has started.
Iran will see the biggest democratic movement in their history in the next couple years. It is unstoppable now.
NK is under the thumb of China. Kim Jung Ill knows he doesn't want to get China upset with him. Sure he can make weapons and get away with selling them, but he is more afraid of China than the U.S.
Ron Ackerman said this in post #29 : NK is under the thumb of China. Kim Jung Ill knows he doesn't want to get China upset with him. Sure he can make weapons and get away with selling them, but he is more afraid of China than the U.S.
the bush NWO wagon will only blaze a trail thru regions that have not come under the umbrella of "globalization." Globalized countries = democracies in their twisted logic. They believe, and it does seem to be true, that poorer countries (non globalized) tend to end up with dictatorial regimes and foster terrorism.
Since N Korea falls under the globalized status....albeit hostile to democracy....bush is just blowing hot smoke up the rest of the world's arses....he'd sooner go after Russia or China (and won't because at least Russia, China, and N Korea are "globalized")...
no this big wagon has its sights on the ME, Africa, Central and most of S. America, and SE Asia. They would rather find other non military means to globalize these dastardly areas though.
North Korea fully relies on foreign assistance not to sink in anarchy. They depend on China to keep maintaining their head above water, and to some a certain extent they depend on western democracies too. They are gesticulating to keep receiving the required help.
Anyway, and I think Oneofpeace has expressed it loud and clear - they claim they have WMDs. And they have them, undoubtedly. They sell hot stuff to terror-sponsoring states. They threat their neighbours. They are this "immediate" danger Bush was claiming Saddam's Iraq once was.
So ... why not NK whopped up ?
Realpolitik. China. Nuclear deterrence. UNCONVENIENT TARGET.
ME is undemocratic ... yes. But you don't set democracy by raining bombs on people. Once again.
In the long term, the peace we seek will only be achieved by eliminating the conditions that feed radicalism and ideologies of murder. If whole regions of the world remain in despair and grow in hatred, they will be the recruiting grounds for terror, and that terror will stalk America and other free nations for decades. The only force powerful enough to stop the rise of tyranny and terror, and replace hatred with hope, is the force of human freedom. Our enemies know this, and that is why the terrorist Zarqawi recently declared war on what he called the "evil principle" of democracy. And we have declared our own intention: America will stand with the allies of freedom to support democratic movements in the Middle East and beyond, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.
—George W. Bush
Exactly.