[LordOpie]

The answer according to Kay, who resigned last week as head of the Iraq Survey Group, which had the job of finding WMD, is that there aren’t any, and none have been manufactured since 1991. random google news article link

Ok, suppose that's completely true and lots of articles are coming out about the lack of WMDs.

What I don't understand is why Iraq not only defied UN and prevented inspections, but they also admitted to having WMDs and continuing the production and improvement of them...

Aug 1995 Iraq provides the third Full, Final and Complete Disclosure for its prohibited biological weapons programme.
...
Iraq also admits having achieved greater progress in its efforts to indigenously produce long-range missiles than had previously been declared. Iraq provides UNSCOM and the IAEA with large amounts of documentation, hidden on a chicken farm ostensibly by Hussein Kamel, related to its prohibited weapons programmes which subsequently leads to further disclosures by Iraq concerning the production of the nerve agent VX and Iraq's development of a nuclear weapon.
link

I think we've beaten the topic of whether or not they had WMDs pretty well as well as the topic of justifying the war, yada yada, so please focus here...

Are recent reports correct? If so, Why did Iraq lie about having WMDs? Pride? Some sort of more devious plan?

If reports are wrong, then what?

 

[valve bouncer]

Loopie, it's a game of one upmanship. Saddam and other tyrants like him are concerned most of all with consolidating their power base. To do this he has to create a climate of fear so pervasive that basically all and sundry are too sh*t scared to do anything. If he'd have come out and said that he doesn't have any WMDs then his internal enemies would know that the emperor isn't wearing any clothes. Of course this begs the question as to why, with Shirley's mates getting ready on the border he didn't "'fess up" well, I think what that comes down to is, in the immortal words of Ving Rhames in Pulp Fiction, "pride f*cken with ya" or in Saddams case ego. He bluffed and the Americans called it, next thing you know the despot is a tramp.

 

[jdcamb]

Originally posted by LordOpie
Are recent reports correct? If so, Why did Iraq lie about having WMDs? Pride? Some sort of more devious plan?

If reports are wrong, then what?

I think that it was the Military strategy of a madman. We (the rest of the world) believed he had WMDs because we wanted to. When he actually had WMDs (and I believe he did) he used the on his own people to punish them for their resistance. Maybe he had to make those claims to keep the Kurds and Shiites inline? Maybe the state of Iraq was held together by the knowledge that if they didn't fall inline behind Saddam or atleast behave that the genocide of their tribe, sect, whatever would be the punishment. Saddams house of cards so to speak. He was bluffing and we called him on it......jdcamb

 

[ummbikes]

Colin Powell released this info this weekend:

REUTERS

TBILISI: US Secretary of State Colin Powell, who urged the United Nations to endorse a pre-emptive war to strip Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction, conceded on Saturday that Saddam Hussein’s government may have no longer had such munitions. One day after David Kay, the chief US weapons inspector in Iraq, said he believes Saddam had not stockpiled unconventional weapons for years, Powell told reporters that his prominent February 5 argument was based on ‘‘what our intelligence community believed was credible.’’

‘‘What is the open question is how many stocks they had, if any, and if they had any, where did they go? And if they didn’t have any, then why wasn’t that known before hand?’’ Powell said aboard his plane en route to Sunday’s presidential inauguration of Mikheil Saakashvili.


So the intelligence was faulty, fictional and we waged war over it.

The spin machine keeps telling me "we got Hussein it's worth it".

It may be nice that Hussiens is not in control anymore but we were told by our president in his first state of the union speech:

"I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by as peril draws closer," Mr Bush said. "The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons."

Which is noble and good policy but before you start bombing a nation you better make sure you know what is truth and what is fiction.

So as me and others have stated and harped on for a while about the invasion of Iraq was not about ending terrorism, was not about weapons of mass destruction, it was about oil and a grudge.

If we wanted to get the s.o.b's who flew planes into the World Trade Center we should be bombing Saudi Arabia.

 

[Tweek]

Originally posted by ummbikes
...

The spin machine keeps telling me "we got Hussein it's worth it".

It may be nice that Hussiens is not in control anymore but we were told by our president in his first state of the union speech:

"I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by as peril draws closer," Mr Bush said. "The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons."

The end does not justify the means.

...
If we wanted to get the s.o.b's who flew planes into the World Trade Center we should be bombing Saudi Arabia.

Or at least not court them like an ally.

 

[DRB]

If we started in on Saudi Arabia tomorrow you sure you two wouldn't change your tune?

 

[slein]

i could have a field day with these revelations... however, what does seem a little unnerving is the fact that there are liars on all sides of the pond.

the notion of fear of something had to be created in order to justify the backing of the military engagement. everyone knows this card.... its as if the aggressor was "egged on" to do what inevitably happened.

as for SH (saddam hussein, **** head.. whatever) adding to the stigma... well, he was a megalomaniac, and he PROBABLY knew the fear was well intrained in his enemy. reminds of something JOHNNY DEPP said about being a little puppy dog... anywho....

what's gonna happen now? BOOSH may be named a fibber, more soldiers will die, and a great oil resource will have been saved for the highest bidders of the reconstruction contracts. some people may realise that something needed to be done for whatever reason. i just hope that the democrats get elected so that this republican mess gets washed... i've had aboot enough of all these new (booshizmz) words i can handle for a millenia.

 

[ummbikes]

Originally posted by DRB
If we started in on Saudi Arabia tomorrow you sure you two wouldn't change your tune?

I can't speak for Tweek, but if Bush had the nuts to actually go get the people who actually attacked us I would support him.

He just simply will not do anything about it.

So how many more goverment officials will have to state that Hussein had no WMD before people admit that Bush pooched the kick on Iraq? I don't need to hear the plausible deniability crap for Bush either, it's his watch and he invaded a country on a premise that was a lie and used jacked up intelligence to make his shoddy case. I can't beleive there are people who think this man is a leader.

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by ummbikes
So as me and others have stated and harped on for a while about the invasion of Iraq was not about ending terrorism, was not about weapons of mass destruction, it was about oil and a grudge.

and you were doing so well up until that point. It's a shame that you dropped the ball.

stop beating a dead horse, move on with your lives.


Focus people, focus...

I asked for speculation about why Iraq lied (assuming there are no WMDs)?

Did Iraq lie to keep it's enemies (Iran?) off balance? Was Saddam losing touch with reality? Was Saddam suicidal? Did Saddam fear internal enemies? Did Saddam fear the Arab nation if he cooperated with the UN (US)?

 

[Westy]

Originally posted by LordOpie

and you were doing so well up until that point. It's a shame that you dropped the ball.

stop beating a dead horse, move on with your lives.


Focus people, focus...

I asked for speculation about why Iraq lied (assuming there are no WMDs)?

Did Iraq lie to keep it's enemies (Iran?) off balance? Was Saddam losing touch with reality? Was Saddam suicidal? Did Saddam fear internal enemies? Did Saddam fear the Arab nation if he cooperated with the UN (US)?

If the world beleived that Saddam had WMD's no one would fack with him. He thought that the US would be afraid to attack if our souldiers were going to get gassed. It was a bluff that he held too long, he should have folded. He probably wanted to do what N. Korea is doing with their Nuclear program. Use it as a powerful bargaining chip.

 

[ummbikes]

L'Opie

I'll venture a guess about Hussein.

Was he "off balance" , "out of touch..."?

Proabably not, he was unethical and had no problem accepting money for selling out his religion and nation. I think he was actually rather shrewed, up to the point where he was found hiding. He was able to amass a fortune, defy the U.S. and the U.N and he never caved to demands. He will be exiled after his trial and still have his life.


The machination was rather complex and has influenced the political/economical future of the United States and Europe for while anyways.

So, no, he isn't insane.

As far as internal enemies go, sure, probably within his own family. Uday and Qusay had their eyes on the top spot.


That better???
:devil:

 

[fluff]

So, Loopie (copyright ValveBouncer 2003), your question is why did Saddam lie, yes? But from the links posted all I see are people suggesting that the intelligence community didn't not want to believe Iraq's statements that they had nothing to hide.

That's not quite the same thing. The way I interpret it (and I note that interpretation seems to be the key here) Iraq were saying that they had got rid of everything the UN required them to; they were co-operating far more than most other countries would (in fact much more so than the US has done - and we've discussed that before (see other WMD threads); the US & UK governments simply wanted war so much that they preferred to interpret everything they could in such a way as to justify war.

I am reminded of your agument that the onus was on Iraq to prove that they did not have these weapons, and that if they could not do so we were OK to invade. Your argument was flawed then and it is flawed now. They were a bit screwed if (as seems to be the current view) those weapons were gone...

I'm not saying Saddam was a nice guy, I'm saying the war was not justified on a WMD basis. Interestingly enough Human Rights Watch are saying the war was not justified on a humanitarian basis either - BBC Link

But hey, I'm a pinko liberal so what do I know?

 

[johnbryanpeters]

What I read in some recent news articles is that Hussein got far enough removed from reality while requiring personal control of about everything that people got to pitching a fake project to him personally, getting a huge chunk of funding for the "project" and accomplishing nothing of substance.

It has also been stated, but not publicly substantiated, that some people and materials may have moved to Syria.

J

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by fluff
So, Loopie (copyright ValveBouncer 2003), your question is why did Saddam lie, yes? But from the links posted all I see are people suggesting that the intelligence community didn't not want to believe Iraq's statements that they had nothing to hide.

That's not quite the same thing. The way I interpret it (and I note that interpretation seems to be the key here) Iraq were saying that they had got rid of everything the UN required them to; they were co-operating far more than most other countries would (in fact much more so than the US has done - and we've discussed that before (see other WMD threads); the US & UK governments simply wanted war so much that they preferred to interpret everything they could in such a way as to justify war.

I am reminded of your agument that the onus was on Iraq to prove that they did not have these weapons, and that if they could not do so we were OK to invade. Your argument was flawed then and it is flawed now. They were a bit screwed if (as seems to be the current view) those weapons were gone...

I'm not saying Saddam was a nice guy, I'm saying the war was not justified on a WMD basis. Interestingly enough Human Rights Watch are saying the war was not justified on a humanitarian basis either - BBC Link

But hey, I'm a pinko liberal so what do I know?

re-read what you wrote... you sound like our president... lots of words, not really saying anything :devil: Seriously, you started down many paths but came to no conclusions.

Originally posted by fluff
I am reminded of your agument that the onus was on Iraq to prove that they did not have these weapons, and that if they could not do so we were OK to invade. Your argument was flawed then and it is flawed now.

How is that flawed? For example, we know for a fact that they had bio-chemical agents at some point, we just didn't know how much. They admitted it having far more than they apparently had. If they did have as much as they claimed, then there'd be a whole mess of residue left over after neutralizing it. And suppose he had no weapons, then it would've been an easy task to let UN inspectors do their job, right?

Here's an analogy... a guy is caught robbing a gas station, he goes to jail for said crime, his lawyer files an appeal. Who's responsibility is it during the appeals stage to prove guilt or innocence?


JBP, I've read similar stuff. I can buy that his people lied to him and that he thought he had those weapons. But he seems the type of guy to want to personally inspect stuff, so that idea isn't 100% either.

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by LordOpie
re-read what you wrote... you sound like our president... lots of words, not really saying anything :devil: Seriously, you started down many paths but came to no conclusions.

A career in politics beckons perhaps? I was writing in the style of this thread, this subject seems to generate little more than spin currently anyway. You know my position, I had seen no evidence of WMD that made me think war was necessary, I'm trying very hard not to say I told you so..

Originally posted by LordOpie

How is that flawed? For example, we know for a fact that they had bio-chemical agents at some point, we just didn't know how much. They admitted it having far more than they apparently had. If they did have as much as they claimed, then there'd be a whole mess of residue left over after neutralizing it. And suppose he had no weapons, then it would've been an easy task to let UN inspectors do their job, right?

Here's an analogy... a guy is caught robbing a gas station, he goes to jail for said crime, his lawyer files an appeal. Who's responsibility is it during the appeals stage to prove guilt or innocence?

The trouble with your analogy is that Saddam Hussein isn't the one who died for his stupidity.

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by fluff
I'm trying very hard not to say I told you so.

but you can't as the evidence at the time was clear cut... again, Iraq had the weapons, used them and admitted to continuing to have them. It's no one's fault if they lied. Granted, the intelligence community might should've known that they lied, but hey, why bother confirming a lie when it supports your position?

Originally posted by fluff
The trouble with your analogy is that Saddam Hussein isn't the one who died for his stupidity.

Saddam is part and parcel with Iraq. If a country so hates and despises their leader, they can overthrow 'em. If they can't rebel, then perhaps they needed others.


Anyway, we're getting off-topic, but I'm guessing the topic wasn't that interesting anyway. I'll wait for a Ken Follet book

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by LordOpie
but you can't as the evidence at the time was clear cut... again, Iraq had the weapons, used them and admitted to continuing to have them. It's no one's fault if they lied. Granted, the intelligence community might should've known that they lied, but hey, why bother confirming a lie when it supports your position?

It may have been clear cut in your opinion, but not in mine or many others and that it had to be spun so much is a clear indication of this.

Originally posted by LordOpie

Saddam is part and parcel with Iraq. If a country so hates and despises their leader, they can overthrow 'em. If they can't rebel, then perhaps they needed others.

A very dangerous stance to take.. Hey I think the US people despise Bush so let's invade? (That'll get me on the NSA's radar..)

Originally posted by LordOpie

Anyway, we're getting off-topic, but I'm guessing the topic wasn't that interesting anyway. I'll wait for a Ken Follet book

I thought we'd stayed unusually close to topic..(for the internet)

Never read Ken Follet, is he any good? I was put off trying his books by his overtly public political shenanigans

 

[ummbikes]

Originally posted by LordOpie
but you can't as the evidence at the time was clear cut... again, Iraq had the weapons, used them and admitted to continuing to have them. It's no one's fault if they lied. Granted, the intelligence community might should've known that they lied, but hey, why bother confirming a lie when it supports your position?

You check your facts and intelligence because Americans value human life and before we send our soldiers into a shooting zone we should make sure we are there for a real reason.

You also make sure your intelligence is accurate because as a nation of people we now look like fools. We have damaged our diplomatic relations with Muslim nations and no one knows how long it will take re-build.

You also check your facts because over 20 thousand humans have died because of this war that was started beacuse we were dumb enough to be played by Hussein and angry enough over 9/11 (which had NOTHING to to do with Iraq) not to make extra sure we knew what was up.

You sure appear flippant about killing based on a lie.

This is horrible, our next Vietnam. We shouldn't be there and there will be a day when even the hawks realize this.

--Whipping away!

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by fluff
It may have been clear cut in your opinion, but not in mine or many others and that it had to be spun so much is a clear indication of this.

I don't understand how you can dispute the individual facts:
1. Did Iraq use illegal WMDs? Yes, fact, he had missles with ranges that were illegal and used it in 1991. Were they illegal at the time? I don't think so, but they had them.

2. Did Iraq file a report saying they had bio-chemical agents? Yes, they did.

If you deny this, then you simply have your head in the sand.

And as for spin, I agree that it has been spun, but really, that's two different topics.

Originally posted by fluff
A very dangerous stance to take.. Hey I think the US people despise Bush so let's invade? (That'll get me on the NSA's radar..)

Uhh, I didn't say we invaded because they hate Saddam, we invaded for our own reasons. And I said that if they hated him, they should've overthrown him. We can simply elect someone else.

Originally posted by fluff
I thought we'd stayed unusually close to topic..(for the internet)

yeah, we did but I was being a wennie before about getting off-topic.

Originally posted by fluff
Never read Ken Follet, is he any good? I was put off trying his books but his overtly public political shenanigans

actually, I only read one -- On Wings of Eagles -- which was good and he's the only author that popped into my mind for the genre.

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by ummbikes
You check your facts...
...
You sure appear flippant about killing based on a lie.

This is horrible, our next Vietnam. We shouldn't be there and there will be a day when even the hawks realize this.

I agree with your thinking but, I was suggesting why this administration didn't check the facts. They *wanted* to invade, so why look for reasons not to invade. But aren't most wars based on lies? As for this being the next Vietnam, you're being a bit melodramatic, aren't you?

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by LordOpie
I don't understand how you can dispute the individual facts:
1. Did Iraq use illegal WMDs? Yes, fact, he had missles with ranges that were illegal and used it in 1991. Were they illegal at the time? I don't think so, but they had them.

2. Did Iraq file a report saying they had bio-chemical agents? Yes, they did.

If you deny this, then you simply have your head in the sand.

I do not deny those facts, nor have I disputed them (though the legal/illegal question is one I'd choose to take aside). However I do not believe that they prove that Iraq had any WMD in 2002/2003. Which is when we invaded because of the alleged WMD threat.

That's what I'm talking about, not ten years ago.

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by fluff
I do not deny those facts, nor have I disputed them (though the legal/illegal question is one I'd choose to take aside). However I do not believe that they prove that Iraq had any WMD in 2002/2003. Which is when we invaded because of the alleged WMD threat.

So you're saying the onus is on the US/UN to prove that Iraq *still* had the weapons? If so, ok, cool. How would the US/UN prove that?

 

[ummbikes]

Originally posted by LordOpie
As for this being the next Vietnam, you're being a bit melodramatic, aren't you?

No, it will play out on a smaller scale, granted, but this conflict is just as polarizing as Vietnam. The blatant lies are similar to Vietnam.

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by LordOpie
So you're saying the onus is on the US/UN to prove that Iraq *still* had the weapons? If so, ok, cool. How would the US/UN prove that?

Yes. And it should have been the UN, not the US.

It seems plenty of evidence was available (enough for reasonable doubt at least) but was ignored by some.

Don't forget the weapons inspectors were withdrawn, not booted out.

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by fluff
Don't forget the weapons inspectors were withdrawn, not booted out.

They also were blocked and hindered and reported back seemingly dirty operations by Iraq before and after visiting areas of interest.

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by fluff
Yes. And it should have been the UN, not the US.

It seems plenty of evidence was available (enough for reasonable doubt at least) but was ignored by some.

Don't forget the weapons inspectors were withdrawn, not booted out.

I don't man, I don't pretend to know everything and use google a lot...

March 3, 2003

Iraq was destroying at least seven more Al Samoud 2 missiles on Monday, quickening the pace in an attempt to avoid war. U.N. weapons inspectors said Iraq would hand over a report about its unilateral destruction of anthrax and VX nerve agent.
...
Iraq said it would submit a detailed written report to the weapons inspectors in about a week with a proposal for verifying its claims that it unilaterally destroyed anthrax stores and about 1.5 tons of VX, a deadly nerve agent, inspectors' spokesman Hiro Ueki said Monday.
link

I actually went looking for info on whether inspectors were kicked, left because they felt the job was done, or left due to frustration at the lack of cooperation.


EDIT: Above article says that missles were dismantled, not destroyed and that Iraq was simply reassembling

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by RhinofromWA
They also were blocked and hindered and reported back seemingly dirty operations by Iraq before and after visiting areas of interest.

If you look back in the WMD archives in this forum you will find a report regarding levels of co-operation with weapons inspectors in which the USA is slammed for lack of co-operation. The US congress also only ratified a treaty regarding weapons inpsection after inserting a clause that allowed the President to block inspections of any building/site where he deemed inspection would be against the national interest. This is no more than Iraq requested and was denied.

Also weapons inspectors were found to be installing listening devices (ie. spying) in some buildings in Iraq.

Is it any wonder that you consider that they were 'blocked'? That would have been no different in any country in the world considering what they wanted to do.

Of course, that would not get reported in the US as that would not help build a case for war.

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by fluff
Is it any wonder that you consider that they were 'blocked'? That would have been no different in any country in the world considering what they wanted to do.

Of course, that would not get reported in the US as that would not help build a case for war.

Iraq new they had to show their cards to appease the US/UN with regards to weapons. They played cat and mouse and the cat got the mouse. They were required to allow inspections...and they kinda did. Kinda is the same as not allowing them. "oh, wait! Stop! we need to get the crap out of here before you look" ......."OK, Now you can go in, Have a nice day"

I watched night after night of news (damn skewed US news) with reports of inspectors at wits end not able to go where they wanted or being stopped while "stuff" is being hauled away....

Yeah that didn't look suspicious, but then it was all made up to promote ratings.....

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by fluff
If you look back in the WMD archives in this forum you will find a report regarding levels of co-operation with weapons inspectors in which the USA is slammed for lack of co-operation. The US congress also only ratified a treaty regarding weapons inpsection after inserting a clause that allowed the President to block inspections of any building/site where he deemed inspection would be against the national interest. This is no more than Iraq requested and was denied.

The difference is, Iraq was ordered to cooperate by the UN.