Weapons of Mass Destruction and Iraq

[Yanny]

I knew it was only a matter of time before someone made the rediculous comparison to President Clinton. Tell me Yanny, is it illegal to lie in this country (not that Bush did), or is it illegal to lie in a courtroom testimony in this country?

So its ok for the President to lie to the world, if he’s not in court. Its ok for a CEO to lie to his stockholders, if he’s not in court.

Okay, now onto the real issue here. That is, weapons of mass destruction. Now, let’s analyze this for a minute. If Saddam really had no weapons, he could have easily embarassed the United States and put an end to our credibility in the region by simply letting us in. Yet he didn’t. He gained the popular support of countries like France which tied our hands for six months while Saddam took his merry time to either hide the weapons or distribute them to neighboring countries.

If he had no weapons, then the Iraq Information Minister was actually right about something! May I ask how Bush and Blair could name specific quanities of WMD but, three months later, not a drop of Anthrax has been found? What about them saying that Iraq could deploy and use WMD with just 45 minutes warning?

The CIA is not an institution of full of idiots. People from the agency have testified that they were pressured to find some evidence of weapons. If this isn’t lieing, then what is?

The Weapons Inspectors did not have thousands of people on the ground, in complete control of the country, scowering the desert looking for these things.

Planting WMD? Are you kidding?

I wouldn’t put it above Bush, hell I wouldn’t put it above half the politicians in Washington.

[cystic crypt]

@Deviant:Scripter:

Eh, it still makes sense Jazz. :wink:

Anyways, I can’t say I agree with you CC. You’re laying out hypothetical situations that probably don’t have a shot in hell of actually happening. Planting WMD? Are you kidding? First of all, we all know that any findings that they make in Iraq will surely be validated with other countries’ intelligence services. With that, comes the fact that these such weapons can easily be traced as to where they came from, let alone what country they were produced in. Remember the anthrax attacks in the mail system, remember how they could pinpoint that to a specific lab? LOL, I wish I was brave enough to give Saddam Hussein the benefit of the doubt also. :)

a) i do not see the U.S. allowing other intelligence agencies to verify or disavow these findings. They didn’t before they invaded, why would they afterwards?
b) i believe that the CDC as well as the level 4/5 lab on long island have the abilities and the resources (in addition to the variety of bugs) to do just about anything they want with regards to planting things. Also there is nuclear, chemical and other wmd - all of which the US has in spades . . . .
Also, it’s not a matter of giving SH the benefit of the doubt so much as casting doubt on other obviously self-serving nations.

[ZimZaxZeo]

Unfortunately, the current administration has gained a reputation for mendacity, in other words: lying. This has been the case in both domestic and foreign policy issues. What really surprises me, at the least in my most cynical moments, is how they could have missed the chance (so far, anyway) to plant plenty of convincing material. The cynical me had always assumed they would go into the war with such follow-through all planned out and the stuff ready to plant! So, is the lack of evidence a sign of incompetence? On some level, it must be.

[cystic crypt]

@ZimZaxZeo:

Unfortunately, the current administration has gained a reputation for mendacity, in other words: lying. This has been the case in both domestic and foreign policy issues. What really surprises me, at the least in my most cynical moments, is how they could have missed the chance (so far, anyway) to plant plenty of convincing material. The cynical me had always assumed they would go into the war with such follow-through all planned out and the stuff ready to plant! So, is the lack of evidence a sign of incompetence? On some level, it must be.

or appropriate timing.
it might be more suspect if they walked in and presto there are all the weapons that 12 years of searching by inspectors missed.

[DeviantScripter]

In my opinion, you guys are simply setting up your excuses for disregarding any finding that Bush makes, whether you see it as legitimate or not.

[Guest]

@Deviant:Scripter:

Anyways, I can’t say I agree with you CC. You’re laying out hypothetical situations that probably don’t have a shot in hell of actually happening.

Like the Iraq possessing WMDs (hypothetic!)? Like the Iraq trying to buy Uranium in Africa (proven wrong!)? etc.etc.

LOL, I wish I was brave enough to give Saddam Hussein the benefit of the doubt also. :)

I believe you, it really takes some courage to defend one of the highest values of democracy and freedom.

[ZimZaxZeo]

I would not give SH the benefit of anything, any time anywhere!

Meanwhile, for my mind, the Bushies have just about used up any reservoir of trust or even of dispassionate consideration.

Think about the way they crowned Halliburton with an open-ended profit gusher with the exclusive, no-bid, middle-of-the-night award of fixing and running the oil biz in Iraq. Bechtel, with Reagan-Bush ties up the wazoo, got a similar deal.

The thing about Halliburton is that they have a demonstrated and well-documented pattern: get contracts with the U.S. Army, overbill the hell of you and me, get caught, pay the fine, do it again – and again – and again, including during Cheney’s tenure. Paying the fine is just a minor cost of doing business. What’s a $2 million fee when you are doing a $2 billion oil and gas deal? (the math says it is one-tenth of one percent)

[DeviantScripter]

You might as well start a new thread about Haliburton, cuz your just simply wrong about that, and it might take awhile for us to discuss it. :wink:

[cystic crypt]

@Deviant:Scripter:

In my opinion, you guys are simply setting up your excuses for disregarding any finding that Bush makes, whether you see it as legitimate or not.

And the opposite is true - i.e. the Bush admin has been setting up excuses for disregarding international law to invade a sovereign nation in light of not finding WMD.
My proplem is that although i used to think of and trust the US as an ally of countries that seek to do right in the world, it is increasingly more difficult to see the US in this way but rather as a bully who will push around who it might for lunch money while terrorizing others into being its friends (terrorizing might be an inappropriate word, however it fits - those who do not cow-tow get nailed with crippling trade penalties, do not get visits from the president, etc.).

[El Jefe]

Let me quote UN Rresolution 1441…

"U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441…

Para. 5…Recognizing the threat Iraq’s noncompliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

Para. 9…Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material…"

The UN majority said Iraq had WMDs…
The UN would not act(recall Chirac’s promise of a “veto to any resolution.”

[cystic crypt]

what happened to all that documentation that the US confiscated anyway?

[DeviantScripter]

I think that documentation was proved irrelevant from the beginning, as the Iraq government never even mentioned the biggest concerns we were worried about.

[Guest]

@El:

"U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441…

Para. 5…Recognizing the threat Iraq’s noncompliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,
…

The UN majority said Iraq had WMDs…

Actually, they do not say so. It appears that they do, but they don’t. Let me re-state the first, to make it clearer:
“Recognizing that as well Iraq’s noncompliance as any proliferation of WMDs pose threats”
So, they talk of 2 dangerous things … never expect that diplomats say something that could be used against them ;)

[cystic crypt]

@Deviant:Scripter:

I think that documentation was proved irrelevant from the beginning, as the Iraq government never even mentioned the biggest concerns we were worried about.

curiously - did anyone other than the US get a chance to see the un-edited version of these documents?

[Guest]

Yes, the weapons inspectors, for about 24 hours or so…. AFAIR

[DeviantScripter]

and other countries too. I don’t recall at this time which ones (i’ll look it up as soon as possible), but the original document was sent to multiple countries, not just the US.

[DeviantScripter]

Okay CC, I’ve found it.

Here’s direct quotes from a CNN article ( http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/12/07/sproject.irq.inspections/ )

the U.N. Security Council decided Friday to delay distributing the Iraqi documents to its member states until U.N. arms inspectors could review them

From Baghdad, U.N. officials were to bring copies to U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission chief Hans Blix in Cyprus; International Atomic Energy Agency Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei in Vienna; and U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan in New York.

[El Jefe]

@F_alk:

@El:

"U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441…

Para. 5…Recognizing the threat Iraq’s noncompliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,
…

The UN majority said Iraq had WMDs…

Actually, they do not say so. It appears that they do, but they don’t. Let me re-state the first, to make it clearer:
“Recognizing that as well Iraq’s noncompliance as any proliferation of WMDs pose threats”
So, they talk of 2 dangerous things … never expect that diplomats say something that could be used against them ;)

F_alk,
Are you saying that because it doesn’t say…
"Para. 5…Recognizing the threat Iraq’s noncompliance with Council resolutions and
IRAQ’S proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,
…
They are talking about two different things?

Another side of that argument could be that because there is no qualifier in front of “proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles,” then Iraq is still the POSSESSOR here.

…and they are talking about one topic.

[cystic crypt]

of course it has still yet to be proven that Iraq IS the possessor of these weapons.
Regardless of whether they are found at this point or not, it would not demonstrate that this was an appropriate invasion and occupation. It would just demonstrate that the US guessed correctly.

[DeviantScripter]

@cystic:

of course it has still yet to be proven that Iraq IS the possessor of these weapons.
Regardless of whether they are found at this point or not, it would not demonstrate that this was an appropriate invasion and occupation. It would just demonstrate that the US guessed correctly.

Huh?

Guessed correctly? It’s a little more serious than just throwing darts and hoping you score with one of them. The US doesn’t simply “hope it’s right” while at the same time sending 500,000 troops into war.

What it does is validate our case for war. The UN resolution 1441 authorized us to use whatever means neccessary to ensure that Iraq does not obtain or develop WMD’s. Finding those WMD’s will make the war legitimate in most people’s eyes. The other people who still don’t find it legitimate will never agree that the war was just (regardless of ANY facts that prove to be correct), becuase they either:

A) don’t want to see the US be correct

or

B) have a politically slanted viewpoint that makes any reasonable assessment of the situation out of the question.

CC, what WOULD demonstrate that this was an appropriate war against Saddam?