The Truth about Iraqi WMDs!

[Crossbow]

Well it has taken one war, about 100 billion dollars, and thousands to die, but the White House is finally admitting their actual rationale concerning Iraq and there WMDs.

BECAUSE Iraq used chemical weapons before, and
BECAUSE the destruction of these weapons could not be confirmed, and
BECAUSE it was well known that Iraq wanted to make WMDs,
THEREFORE the White House assumed that Iraq currently had WMDs (even though direct evidence of this claim was lacking).
THUS, the real pretext for going to war against with Iraq has finally been officially provided.

Ari Fleischer (White House press secretary) essentially said as much yesterday during his press briefing in which he was repeatedly asked about Iraqi WMDs. Where are they?(Don't know) Have any been found?(No) What about all this proof you supposedly had before the war?(Well, Saddam is dead) And so on.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6899-2003Jun17.html

The administration case is not based entirely on direct evidence. Fleischer said that "the decision to go to war was based on the knowledge that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and Saddam Hussein had a history of using weapons of mass destruction." He said the intelligence about the lack of evidence that any weapons were destroyed "led to the conclusion of this administration, the previous administration and many on the Hill that Saddam Hussein did indeed have weapons of mass destruction."

 

[Monketi Ghost]

It's our guess that Hussein's up to something, so we're going invade, lay waste, and see what there is to be seen.

Goodbye, Land of the Free. Hello, Land of the Warhawk Guesswork.

Oh, for the days when a person could really be proud of this country. (Thinks back, recalling many unsavory moments in our history) ~~What days were those, again?

 

[ssibal]

Given Saddam's history, how can you consider that to be an unreasonable conclusion?

 

[Cain]

A few things. First, the Whitehouse website contains detailed receipts, incontrovertible evidence, for Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction:

Also, don't forget about the two tractor trailers that could have possibly been produced weapons of mass destruction (even though experts, as usual, have now disputed the administration's initial claims):

 

[Cain]

Given Saddam's history, how can you consider that to be an unreasonable conclusion?

Let's recall Bush's address to the nation shortly after we invaded on March 19th:

Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly -- yet, our purpose is sure. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder. We will meet that threat now, with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and Marines, so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of fire fighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities.
...

My fellow citizens, the dangers to our country and the world will be overcome. We will pass through this time of peril and carry on the work of peace. We will defend our freedom. We will bring freedom to others and we will prevail.
May God bless our country and all who defend her. -- Bush, fear-mongerer

He shamelessly invoked the memory of 9/11 to invade a country alleged to present a "grave danger" to the world. If you want to go in to liberate Iraqis, bring about democracy, improve their lives, great. But the administration never made this case (and it's laughable given our past support for Saddam, arguably at the height of his terror).

 

[Crossbow]

Given Saddam's history, how can you consider that to be an unreasonable conclusion?

OK Ssibal, perhaps I did not make myself clear at the start of this thread, so allow me to try again.

I consider the conclusion [the one where it was plainly stated that Iraq currently had WMDs] to be quite unreasonable because it was not based on accurate information.

I hope this helps!

 

[ssibal]

Let's recall Bush's address to the nation shortly after we invaded on March 19th:



He shamelessly invoked the memory of 9/11 to invade a country alleged to present a "grave danger" to the world. If you want to go in to liberate Iraqis, bring about democracy, improve their lives, great. But the administration never made this case (and it's laughable given our past support for Saddam, arguably at the height of his terror).

I did not agree with the assesment of Iraq being a threat to the U.S. but in my opinion the ends justify the means.

 

[ssibal]

OK Ssibal, perhaps I did not make myself clear at the start of this thread, so allow me to try again.

I consider the conclusion [the one where it was plainly stated that Iraq currently had WMDs] to be quite unreasonable because it was not based on accurate information.

I hope this helps!

What is the inaccurate information that you refer to? You listed three main points in your original post, do you think they are not accurate?

BECAUSE Iraq used chemical weapons before, and
BECAUSE the destruction of these weapons could not be confirmed, and
BECAUSE it was well known that Iraq wanted to make WMDs,

Now if you accept these statements and take into consideration Saddam's history, how is it unreasonable to conclude that Iraq still had WMD?

 

[Jon_in_london]

Nice one cain.

ssibal: you say the ends justifys the means, Do the ends justify our leaders lying to us to justify an unnecessary war that has cost 1000s of lives?

 

[Jedi Knight]

It's our guess that Hussein's up to something, so we're going invade, lay waste, and see what there is to be seen.

Goodbye, Land of the Free. Hello, Land of the Warhawk Guesswork.

Oh, for the days when a person could really be proud of this country. (Thinks back, recalling many unsavory moments in our history) ~~What days were those, again?

What about the 56 UN resolutions that Saddam ignored which thrust the US into a military invasion of Iraq? What about the 300,000 people found in mass graves as innocent Iraqi family members looked on and tried to identify their loved ones? What about Saddam's persistent threat in the international media to deal the United States civilian populations "a fatal blow"?

Saddam asked for it and he got it. If there was ever a reason to fight for US ideals it was in Iraq.

Also, more WMD will be found. I guarantee it.

JK

 

[Jedi Knight]

Nice one cain.

ssibal: you say the ends justifys the means, Do the ends justify our leaders lying to us to justify an unnecessary war that has cost 1000s of lives?

That is less than 1% of the Muslims Saddam butchered as crimes against humanity in the last ten years.

JK

 

[Malachi151]

That is less than 1% of the Muslims Saddam butchered as crimes against humanity in the last ten years.

JK

A large number of the people that Saddam killed were in cooperation with the US or with US approval.

The US supplied the WMDs that were used in the war with Iran, which involves the alleged gassing of the Kurds though no one knows if it was the Iraqis or Iranians that killed the Kurds. Still at the time the US approved of the activity and under Reagan it was ruled that Iran killed the Kurds.

We supplied the materials, taught them how to use them, and provided their intelligence. Hmm...

As for other killings, many were part of CIA backed anti-Communsit effort.

 

[Malachi151]

Nice one cain.

ssibal: you say the ends justifys the means, Do the ends justify our leaders lying to us to justify an unnecessary war that has cost 1000s of lives?

Exactly, the issue here for US and Americans is the lying, not the war. The fact is they got support w/o being honest. The fact that they didn't feel they could be honest with the people and still support their agenda is the problem, and the fact that they were successful in massivly manipulating opinion.

I still contend that this war was about:

The war on Iraq was really designed to be a war on the European Union, OPEC, and the UN as much as a war on Iraq. It was designed to indirectly attack the EU and UN via the Iraqi situation. The three primary goals were to secure American influence in the Persian Gulf, weaken the EU and UN, and gain increased influence over OPEC.

Now, what conditions have led the Bush administration to pursue war in Iraq in order to promote this agenda, and what are the objectives of the conflict with Iraq, and in what way do they promote this agenda? (Note that I am referring to the Bush administration from prior to the time that Bush took office. Major members of the current Bush administration have been assembled and cooperating together as a group towards their goals since at least 1998.)

There seems to be several different "layers" of conditions that have compelled the Bush administration to seek war with Iraq.

1) Initial conditions that shaped the Bush administration's stance on Iraq (?-2000):

a) The Gulf region is an area that has been deemed essential to control for the purpose of American national security and American control in that region has been undermined since 1979 when the Shah was removed from power.

b) The Iraqi oil resources are underdeveloped which presents a large economic opportunity for oil companies, but they are nationalized which negates much of that opportunity.

c) It was likely that any change of power that occurred within Iraq based on the will of the Iraqi people would see the rise of an anti-American government in Iraq because the interests of most Iraqis as viewed by Iraqis is in opposition to America or American desires and ways.

d) The situation in Iraq presented a window of opportunity for American involvement in the shaping of the Middle East because after years of sanctions some change was going to have to take place in Iraq. If America did not act on it unilaterally then the international community would act on it, which would be less advantageous for American interests.

e) Saddam Hussein remained a regional threat that undermined American interests in the Middle East.

f) The European Union was growing increasingly more powerful, and moving towards a stronger political, military, and economic position.

g) The euro was launched and successful.

h) Saddam Hussein was allowed to move his UN oil-for-food account to Euros instead of dollars, which ended up being profitable for Iraq (while Clinton was still in office)

2) Progressing conditions that elevated the Bush administration's stance (2001 - 2003)

a) Other OPEC countries began considering a move to the euro, following Iraq's successful lead.

b) The euro began gaining prominence in the Middle East through both Iraq and the EU.

c) The September 11, 2001 attack on America, which provided a strong window of opportunity to gain support for a full-scale invasion of Iraq and regime change.

d) The EU's role in Middle Eastern politics and economics was continuing to increase.

e) OPEC began seriously considering adopting the euro as their primary currency.

What is significant about these conditions is that most of them have not been addressed publicly by the Bush administration, and some of them have actually been denounced as factors influencing their decision to go to war with Iraq, such as Iraq's under developed oil reserves.

I broke these conditions up into two groups. The conditions that originally influenced the Bush "administration" prior to taking office, and the conditions that would have strengthened the administrations resolved after having taken office.

It's clear that the Bush administration already felt strongly about the need to invade Iraq even prior to Iraq's move to the euro. This is evidenced most prominently by the 1998 letter to Clinton. The entire Gulf region has long been considered an area that is directly linked to American national security because of the high amount of oil in that region and America's dependence on that oil for the American economy and the American military. As was already stated, the Carter Doctrine was established in 1980 and stated plainly that, “an attempt by an outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.”

 

[Segnosaur]

A large number of the people that Saddam killed were in cooperation with the US or with US approval.

The people that were killed did not want to live under a brutal oppresive leadership. Do you think they should have been killed for it?

I do think that the US made a mistake in not giving more support to people demonstrating against Saddam; however, a mistake in the past should not prevent positive actions in the future.

The US supplied the WMDs that were used in the war with Iran,

Now, repeat after me...

"The US was not the only supporter of Iraq in the 80s". Can you say that? I knew you could.

Fact is, the US was not the only supplier of weapons to Iraq. All in all, only 1% of the conventional arms used in Iraq came from the US, with the majority coming from Russia and France. See: http://www.command-post.org/archives/002978.html

Even though the US did sell some WMD technology to Iraq, much of it (perhaps a majority) came from other countries, including France (including Anthrax stock, and the reactor that was destroyed in the 80s) and Germany (including technology to make poison gas.) See: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003269

 

[ssibal]

Nice one cain.

ssibal: you say the ends justifys the means, Do the ends justify our leaders lying to us to justify an unnecessary war that has cost 1000s of lives?

I disagree that the war was unnecessary.

 

[Tricky]

Now, repeat after me...

"The US was not the only supporter of Iraq in the 80s". Can you say that? I knew you could.

Now repeat after me...
"If the US gave any WMDs to Iraq, then it is hypocritical if it then complains about them."

Did the US ever say, "Be sure not to use these"? Was Saddam less brutal then, or only the enemy of our enemy?

Of course, if you want to be brutally straight, no country that has WMDs has any right to complain about WMDs. Everybody will have them eventually. You can't get the genie back in the bottle.

 

[Captain_Snort]

the simple truth about WMD's were that they were an excuse, a pretext that they hoped they could get away with

 

[voidx]

"If the US gave any WMDs to Iraq, then it is hypocritical if it then complains about them."

Whoever claimed international politics weren't inextricably filled with hypocrits? Is it hypocritical? Sure it is. Should it stay your hand from going back and correcting previous administrations f*ck ups? Of course not. It will be interesting to see how the apparently misleading stance of the Bush administration plays out as the delay time on further lack of WMD proof continues. The parallels back to the cold war era still make me chuckle, and makes people seem naive. Its naive to think that any world wide clash and arm wrestling of super powers would not leave dirty laundry littered all over the place in its wake in the years to come. Was it the right thing to do then? From the American stand point in the world today, it seems to have worked well for them. But then that's all perspective right . Basically to me thats a whole seperate arguement and forum thread. Did they handle this situation properly, hard to say. Should they be called to task if no solid proof is ever shown, certainly. Are they playing dangerous games with the opinion of the status of American foreign policy in the world? Sure thing. Should any of the above items prevent you, even hypocritically so, from going back and cleaning up a mess past administrations created, if they can be shown to be justified? Hell no. IMO this attitude just leads to inaction which solves nothing.

I'm not sure where I stand on the justification for this war any longer. Its just difficult for us to tell getting what information we can from news agencies and internet sources. One gets tired of eating grains of salt all day long .

 

[Guest]

Superior tech, bazillquadrillions spent, and we still don't know if Osama or Sadaam are dead, or if they have or had any WOMD!

LOL

-Who

 

[subgenius]

Superior tech, bazillquadrillions spent, and we still don't know if Osama or Sadaam are dead, or if they have or had any WOMD!

LOL

-Who

But we were positive, before the war.

Unfortunately the threads dealing with the use of selective, questionable, inaccurate intelligence get hijacked into a discussion of whether Saddam should have been deposed regardless ("the ends justify the mean"--wasn't that Adolf's motto?).
That's irrelevent to the issue of the credibility of a government domestically and internationally.
It happens to be an important thing.

But not to worry, someone has guaranteed that we will find them, or I guess we get those lives back.