Pre-war intelligence and doubt that Iraq had WMD

Politics International Politics
41

Yeah, just like the vial of BT in someone’s fridge.

But since you always defend Bush for not being able to know because he was given information from somebody else (CIA, DIA etc.) why don’t you apply the same to Saddam? Maybe the people in charge told him that they destroyed all the WMD and materials - so he never lied, too. :smiling_imp:[/quote]

That’s possible, Rascal. And that is precisely the situation that David Kay referred to when he indicated that Iraq might actually have been even more dangerous than we thought originally… if Saddam actually was not aware of what was going on… what would there have been to stop a rogue scientist or soldier from dealing with al Qaeda (if you insist that Saddam and OBL would never cooperate?[/quote]

Lets see then

Pakistan has nukes as has India, Israel, Russia and others including North Korea

Do you think then it is prudent to invade them just in case one of their scientists or army personnel sells to terrorists and the leader of the country does not know about?

FYI I think people are pissed at the US for being a bully… " we perceive this country is a threat or a potential terrorist… lets eliminate the threat"… they maybe right they maybe wrong… but simply to many people they are throwing their weight around… in that respect maybe the US should work on its PR to change the perception of it as a bully

Also what sort of precidence does that action of the US set… does this precidence not allow me to hunt down or kill someone as long as I provide sufficient evidence that the guy cannot prove he is not a terrorist…

And what about countries… suppose a government has subversives or freedom fighters fighting against the corrupt government… lets suppose they kill the corrupt prime minister and members of cabinet with a bomb… the government is outraged at this TERRORIST attack ( lets remember that terrorists are people who create terror) and hunt them down and kill them. Since we have been bombarded with the word TERRORISTS etc, will our automatic reaction to this be “well tough… they are terrorists”

Suppose China labelled the Falun Gong as terrorists and created some law to label them as a terrorist group… does this then make it ok to do with them as we like… as we are being thought that we must remove the scourge of terrorism
Maybe hunt them down and kill them… remove the terrorist threat

Now lets look at it this way … suppose someone terrorised by wife by running around saying he was going to kill her ( he has inflicted terror)… does that mean I can eliminate him and the threat of terrorism he presents or the threat he may present in the future… and what exactly is elimainting the terrorist threat… killing him?.. burning his home???.. killing people he deals with???. locking him up permanently in a little island off Keelung?

42

TNT:

We have gone through these arguments repeatedly. Let me summarize and take apart your highly morally relativist viewpoint. Been reading Noam Chomsky this afternoon?

  1. The US does not need to act the same in each area, with each country or at each time. No country does. Foreign policy is based on personalities and variables that change every minute.

  2. Iraq was deemed to pose a unique threat and also a unique opportunity.

  3. What dangerous precedent has been set? The US and NATO invaded Bosnia and Kosovo with no UN imprimatur. France frequently acts without it in Africa.

  4. China will do what it wants without any precedent. It already attacks the Falun Gong. There is a big difference between a legitimate threat like the al Qaeda and Falun Gong. What has the latter blown up recently?

  5. The US was roundly disliked even before Bush. We were voted off the UN human rights commission during his early tenure before 911, Afghanistan and Iraq, etc. I would point out that Europe is just as widely despised for failing to act. The UN’s inability to do anything is just as equally treated with contempt.

  6. The US is acting in Pakistan through carrots and sticks. We have seen movement toward Pakistan ending its support of terrorism in Kashmir, we have ended the nuclear weapons bazaar, we have elicited strong cooperation in the fight against al Qaeda and also the Taliban, a former client “statelet” of Pakistan’s intelligence service.

  7. The US has effectively cracked down on Saudi Arabia substantially reducing the funding of terrorist groups while bringing the debate to them and their country. The record is not perfect but then neither is our record with France and Germany.

  8. Invading Iraq was the right thing to do. Regardless, we now KNOW that Saddam will never get nuclear or chemical weapons and with both him and his sons out of the picture, we can guarantee that at least 70,000 fewer people will die in Iraq this year than during his tenure despite the bad security situation. Iraq is no longer a threat to its neighbors.

  9. The humanitarian situation in Iraq has improved dramatically as has the economy. Think sanctions. The security situation is bad but manageable. We are behind schedule in this area. Does this mean that the effort was not worth it. I don’t think so.

  10. Despite Europe’s condemnation, the majority of governments voted and supported the United States effort. Major exceptions were Germany, France and Belgium. Sweden, Austria, Ireland and Greece remained noncommittal. So really now with Spain switching sides you have four governments well really still the three that remain opposed. Russia and China also opposed action in Serbia and Bosnia and Kosovo so draw your own conclusions there.

  11. France is widely hated. Its teams are booed around the world. The Japanese are widely hated in Asia, the Russians are widely hated in Eastern Europe, Germany is widely hated in Europe, Israel is widely hated in the Muslim world, and really secretly don’t all Western nations fear and hate the Muslim and Arab world because of the terrorism and intolerance? So … what really is your point?

43

My point being that you seem to believe everything that is spouted on Iraq in particular from Bush’s people without question ( I say this cause you always jump on any comments or critisms against him). It has been knows that administrations and people have lied/manipulated facts and the truth in the past, and if it has happened once it may happened again.

Therefore does your staunch defence of US actions and foreign policy not tend people to believe here that your defence of this is comes not from your beliefs, but to defend against the “attacks” of people on this board against the US and President Bush? The President of the US is an institution not a person after all.

On your rather 11 bulleted post, I would simply say we could argue this all day, but its academic really since the US has more guns… and the victor is always right

Particularly on point 9 since the empahasis on the reason to invade Iraq was WMDs or WMD progams or someother reason… can’t remember… the US won that argument too citing bad intelligence… however they did get the justification to invade the country by using bad intelligence

What’s the old saying “God doesn’t close one door but opens another!!” :wink:

Anyway, my questions to you are this

Do you believe 100% of what you are told on CNN or by Bush or his team?
Do you ever look at it from the other side of the fence?
Do you take this information, think about it, and then come to the conclusion that everything that is said by CNN or by Bush or his team is correct?

44

[quote=“TNT”]Pakistan has nukes as has India, Israel, Russia and others including North Korea

Do you think then it is prudent to invade them just in case one of their scientists or army personnel sells to terrorists and the leader of the country does not know about?[/quote]

No, of course not. :unamused: Nor is that what I stated or implied. In the context of all of these discussions re the invasion of Iraq it should by now be clear that 1) the US asserted that Iraq under saddam’s rule constituted a growing threat and 2) that any use of military force had to be weighed against potential repercussions…

Pakistan has already been shown to have a rogue scientist selling nuke secrets/parts (thus, it isn’t difficult to imagine the same thing happening in Iraq if Saddam were not truly in control). Obviously, however, the cost benefit analysis for invading Pakistan doesn’t work out the way the same analysis works out for invading Iraq. The same applies to N. Korea, which definitely is a threat, and for different reasons to other nations…

Which makes perfect sense… :unamused: The US, but not Saddam’s Iraq, is a bully.

Look, it is not merely a matter of peception… Saddam was a bully… as a matter of fact. He invaded Iran and Kuwait and fired missiles into Israel and Saudi Arabia in an effort to expand a conflagration that he started. He ws in power when the US invaded only be virtue of an UN cease-fire that he agreed to immediately comply with and then violated for 12 years. There was no doubt that Saddam’s Iraq was a threat to the region and to the US. What part of this do you not understand?

The type of precedent set is the type that results in rogue nations such as Libya to cease years and years of international treaty and law violations regarding nuclear proliferation and cooperation with other rogue nations. Seem like a good precedent, IMO

Why would it? Again, Saddam admitted to possession of X amount of WMD and agreed to dispose of the same and to account fully for such disposal immediately in the UN cease fire agreement that he signed 12 years ago and continually violated for 12 years. If this condition was too onerous, Saddam should not have agreed to the same.

I suppose it would depend upon how credible the threat was. And how credible the threat was would depend upon the individual’s past actions.

45

TNT:

Sure do look at the other side. But where has anyone proven that Bush deliberately misled the American public? Where has anyone proven that the Bush administration was wrong to view Saddam as a threat?

I just see a lot of abuse being thrown around for emotional reasons by people who do not really have an understanding of security issues. Rather than asking if I believe everything I read on CNN, you may wish to ask yourself if you believe everything you read or see in the Guardian or on the BBC.

There is a general consensus in much of America as well as Europe that Bush is evil and an idiot. Why? No one has any proof but they are enraged and outraged and blah blah blah.

In this whole hate Bush thing, a simple fact is lost: Iraq and its people are better off without Saddam. True or False? True. So if the US is in Iraq, what would get it out faster than stability? But those that criticize the US are actually encouraging the insurgents which means that the US will stay longer. So if you were terrorists or antiwar types, why not shut up so the US can get out faster and then act?

Because the terrorists and insurgents know that if Iraq becomes stable it may become democratic and then the Muslim and Arab world will have a Turkey. Oh my god. What a dangerous example that might set. So the fight will go on but I remain confident that we will win. Criticize the straegy all you want but if you do criticize the action taken to remove Saddam, what kind of moral ground are you really standing on?

46

The type of precedent set is the type that results in rogue nations such as Libya to cease years and years of international treaty and law violations regarding nuclear proliferation and cooperation with other rogue nations. Seem like a good precedent, IMO [/quote]

Or other nations to declare they have them and imply intent to use

Maybe he should have had a better lawyer… Lionel Hutz knows shit really

47

Other nations have been using whatever weapons they want when and how they want for far longer than the US has been around. Ironically, it is the very nations that declare and follow the process that are the least worry. It is the ones that don’t like Iraq that need a good lesson every now and then to show them that the US, unlike Germany/France and the UN, means business. Of course, France too does mean business, sort of like the business in Cote d’Ivoire where the security situation continues to worsen, the economy is in free fall and the political fabric of the country in ruins, but that is hardly news right?

48

Must agree its a difficult one and easy for people on the sidelines to make the commentary of what is right and what is wrong… espically when they have committed nothing and have nothing to loose. As a matter of fact I do not believe the Guardian or the BBC as many of these journalist who work for these are oppurtunists in a situation like this nor CNN as there is spin doctoring there too

However I do worry abit that the US and the people have become so sensitive that they vunerable to explotation by the administration and the media… and quite easily fall in line to words like " good" and “evil” and “right” and “wrong”. There is no defined line between the two and most of us manage to hang in the gray area between

I would be split down the middle on this… if you heard a pro invasion Iraq person speak on it for 30 mins you would start agreeing with them … however if you heard an anti invade Iraq person speak for 30 mins you would start agreeing with them

Therefore at the end of the day… it comes down to who can argue more… be seen to be arguing for it more… and who can argue it better

49

Interesting post FS. Notice how you change the subject once again. I wasn’t referring to wmds in citing the article. the war just exposed this company for what it was. it could have been any war, and has nothing to do with Saddam.
This is like the Pentagon paying 400 dollars for the proverbial toilet seat.
Why can’t the govt have responsible procurement/outsourcing contracts? why should taxpayers pay for what is basically waste/theft/kickbacks?

and what does this have to do with Iraq.

50

JB???

What’s the title of this thread?

51

[quote=“fred smith”]JB???

What’s the title of this thread?[/quote]

what, i cant talk about something else?

sure you’re not backstepping?

52

JB:

Talk about whatever you want. Knock yourself out. … hard please… haha

Oh and stop smoking crack and doing e. It messes with your mind.

53

You are citing David Kay? Mr. We-will-soon-make-some-surprising-annoucement and later quitting the WMD hunt by saying there are probably none!?
And again, what applies to Saddam also applies to Bush - he obviously was not aware either about the quality of information fed to him. Not sure what that makes him though (given he really didn’t know, a claim easily made).

54

[quote=“fred smith”]JB:

Talk about whatever you want. Knock yourself out. … hard please… haha

Oh and stop smoking crack and doing e. It messes with your mind.[/quote]

way to sidestep the entire issue by making it an ad hominem attack.

Way to go. Pat yourself on the back, and give yourself a medal for a hard day’s work. You sure are the ultimate Mr. Argument in this here small forum. Add another one for Mr. Loquacious.

55

What are you on?

I thought you liked joking about crack and e? Best not to drink when posting though. haha

In all seriousness though, I have not a clue about what exactly I am supposed to be responding to? It has been alleged again that Halliburton may have committed another alleged crime? Gee. Um. Yes, prosecute it to the fullest if any wrongdoing comes to light. How’s that? Best I can do in light of the fact that it was cleared for any wrongdoing in the last alleged case of alleged wrongdoing. So… um… how’s that?

Freddie

56

Well it is now in. These were two wmds. That is TWO that have been found in Iraq so WMDS HAVE BEEN FOUND IN IRAQ. In addition to the fact that it has been PROVEN that Saddam had PROGRAMS to restart wmd production whenever he wanted. Now, how MANY will satisfy people like Rascal? Do we need to find 50? 100? 1,000? Just how many do you need Rascal? Let’s hear it now so later you won’t be able to wiggle and say well two is not enough. 20 is not enough. 50 is not enough. What about the one that went off in Jordan that was supposed to kill 80,000 people with a poisonous gas cloud? Just where did that one come from? Those kinds of chemicals have been definitively linked to Saddam and Iraq. So I guess we have THREE wmds now. I think that your best argument now would be to complain about how Bush botched the invasion and allowed these weapons to get loose. That works for me. And for once, we can be justified in our outrage. How about it?

Then, we can argue about how this campaign has been run? That would work for me. I would really like to hold the media accountable for war crimes. I mean if the media incites people to violence shouldn’t it be held accountable? What do you think?

57

Thanks for making that argument fred, because it backfires: You accuse me of morally equivalency by comparing to the millions of victims by Nazi Germany when I remark that the US-led invasions in Afghanistan and Iraq have killed thousands of innocent civilians. Then a few thousand are nothing and the US is still doing the right thing - and now you claim that you have found WMD and thus were right based on two old and rusty shells!? ROTFL.
In that case a vial of BT in somebody’s fridge would have been sufficient evidence. But unfortunately it expired.

Answer my earlier question first: how many dead innocent civilians does it take before you consider the US actions wrong!

But I will be nice and answer your question: they need to find what they claimed, nothing less.

[quote]George Bush, Jan. 7, 2003: “Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent … upward of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents…materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin.”

Secretary of State Colin Powell at UN, Feb. 5, 2003: “Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent… My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we’re giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence.”[/quote]

When you have come up with those I might forgive you the mobile weapon labs, 45 minute WMD and nukes claim.

:raspberry:

58

Hmmm maybe Rascal does have a point. Let’s hope for our sake that Bush and Powell were completely wrong or making this up as opposed to the alternative which is that this stuff exists and that it is loose in the Middle East. I guess if that’s what Bush and Powell claimed then we will have to do a lot better than dig up a few rusty wmds? Could be. But the programs still existed and those could have been restarted any time. Witness North Korea.

How many civilians? But who is killing them? Is the US? No. How many have we killed and how many have been deliberately put in harm’s way and how many have the terrorists killed? Actually, if you look at it in numbers, the total has dropped dramatically since the Americans took over despite the violence so…

59

So, they must find 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent?

Each has his own view, I guess. But this doesn’t work for me. I think that if they found just ONE tonne of any of these agents, public opinion would swing round dramatically and people would start saying: the coalition was right and, b’jeesus, where did the other 499* tonnes go?

That might put the pressure on Syria, which has been accused of taking some.

Remember Rascal, the war was fought on the grounds of Iraq failing to account for 500 tonnes. Your methodology would leave the iraqi invasion unjust if Iraq had secretly sold on/lost/hidden a tonne of the stuff and the inspectors had found 499 tonnes.

Not finding any could mean that there was none or that the whole amount is unaccounted for.

Previously, because none was found, the argument was that the coalition goofed. There was none in the first place!

Now, it seems that there is some evidence to suggest some amounts were in Iraq until very recently and maybe are still there.

Which means we have to consider far more seriously than before the possibility that the coalition not finding any is symptomatic NOT of bad intelligence, but of a massive proliferation/hiding of WMD.

*edited to disguise my appalling maths in original post!

60

Answer my earlier question first: how many dead innocent civilians does it take before you consider the US actions wrong!

[quote]George Bush, Jan. 7, 2003: “Our intelligence officials [color=red]
estimate
[/color] that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much …”

Secretary of State Colin Powell at UN, Feb. 5, 2003: “Our conservative [color=red]
estimate
[/color] is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between …”[/quote]

They claimed… [color=red]
estimates
[/color]…