Wmds...
The_Angel_of_Death
Join Date: 2003-11-19 Member: 23184Members
Join Date: 2003-11-19 Member: 23184Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">did they truely exist?</div> We all have heard the WMDs are still not found and everybody is saying that this is a big embarassment to the US and that we invaded for a "hidden agenda". I won't go into this "hidden agenda", but what I don't get is why people are so critical about us not finding these WMDs.
Every single major intelligence agency in the world reported that Iraq had the potential, if not possesed these WMDs. Even those who are critizing us so harshly. There have records of purchases by Iraq for equipment to be used in the processes of construction. Also the Iraqi army had chemical protection suits all over the country for use by the military (believe me, we would not invite such a political slaughter. Use WMDs to stop the use of WMDs? ) We have even found mobile biological transportion vehicles, now why would they need those? Not to mention that if you look at the size of the country. We have found JETS out buried in the middle of nowhere, now what is to stop them from doing the same with WMDs? Not too mention that a jet is not as important or valuable as these highly sought after weapons, so I doubt they would just dig a whole and drop them in teh middle of a desert.
Why couldn't Iraq have driven these WMDs over the border to another country? This could be with or without their permission you must remember. I'm just curious why people are freaking out that we have not found these WMDs, it's a needle in a haystack, except there are a few grenades in the stack and a couple of politicans to watch-out for. I this probaly has been discussed before, but i am just not seeing how people can be so critical or this, especially considering the facts. We have found the gun, just not the bullets...
Every single major intelligence agency in the world reported that Iraq had the potential, if not possesed these WMDs. Even those who are critizing us so harshly. There have records of purchases by Iraq for equipment to be used in the processes of construction. Also the Iraqi army had chemical protection suits all over the country for use by the military (believe me, we would not invite such a political slaughter. Use WMDs to stop the use of WMDs? ) We have even found mobile biological transportion vehicles, now why would they need those? Not to mention that if you look at the size of the country. We have found JETS out buried in the middle of nowhere, now what is to stop them from doing the same with WMDs? Not too mention that a jet is not as important or valuable as these highly sought after weapons, so I doubt they would just dig a whole and drop them in teh middle of a desert.
Why couldn't Iraq have driven these WMDs over the border to another country? This could be with or without their permission you must remember. I'm just curious why people are freaking out that we have not found these WMDs, it's a needle in a haystack, except there are a few grenades in the stack and a couple of politicans to watch-out for. I this probaly has been discussed before, but i am just not seeing how people can be so critical or this, especially considering the facts. We have found the gun, just not the bullets...
Comments
Care to back that up? With all the reports now emerging that pre-war intelligence was flawed, it's clear that the intelligence was no where near as certain as you make it out to be. I also do not recall German, Russian, Chinese or French intelligance agencies reporting that Iraq for certain had WMDs, or had the potential.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->There have records of purchases by Iraq for equipment to be used in the processes of construction. Also the Iraqi army had chemical protection suits all over the country for use by the military<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Saddam used to have a stockpile; no-one questioned that. The only new equipment I recall Saddam purchasing was those aluminium rods that turned out to be not designed for certrifuges.
With regards to the chemical protection suits, that's not a guareentee or even proof that Saddam had WMDs. He could have told his troops that the US was going to use such weapons as a propaganda ploy. He could have wanted to create the impression amongst his troops that he did have WMDs, perhaps inspiring them to fight harder. These troops may have still had these suits as a hold-over from the old days before the First Gulf War when Saddam did have WMDs. Regardless, they do not provide quantitive proof.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Not to mention that if you look at the size of the country. We have found JETS out buried in the middle of nowhere, now what is to stop them from doing the same with WMDs? Not too mention that a jet is not as important or valuable as these highly sought after weapons, so I doubt they would just dig a whole and drop them in teh middle of a desert.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Except we can find no records of that. No paper trails, no army men saying they did that, no sattalite evidence of excavations. The US was talking about thousands of tons of WMDs prior to the war; you don't just hide that like a jet. It's a major operation to hide that amount of stuff, and I find it highly dubious that a nation that was under 24 hour survailance by US military sattalites and aircraft could undertake an operation of that level in secracy. And even more improbable that after the war, no-one knows about it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'm just curious why people are freaking out that we have not found these WMDs, it's a needle in a haystack, except there are a few grenades in the stack and a couple of politicans to watch-out for. I this probaly has been discussed before, but i am just not seeing how people can be so critical or this, especially considering the facts. We have found the gun, just not the bullets...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We have not found the gun. We've found no production facilities. No laboratories. No storage warehouses. The US said that Saddam could launch WMDs within 45 minutes of ordering a strike; we found no evidence of that.
The reason we are so "freaking out" as you put it is because we were told by our political leaders that Iraq was a threat. That Saddam had WMDs and links to Al Qaeda and if we didn't invade, Iraq was going to use those WMDs against us. That was the justification for war. That's why we're concerned that no evidence of those weapons, or facilities for producing those weapons, has shown up. It means that we went to war on a lie. The credibility of several administrations and intelligence services across the world is at stake here.
Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright (February 1998): "Iraq is a long way from here, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
In 2002, Al Gore said, "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Also in 2002, Sen. Ted Kennedy said, "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. John Kerry, Democratic presidential front-runner, said in 2002, "I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force ? if necessary ? to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
In January 2003, Kerry added, "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real."
"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others
AND MY PERSONAL FAVORITES
"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002
A March 8 2003, New York Times article quoted a 173-page dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, by chief U.N. inspector <b>Hans Blix</b>. It said Baghdad may possess about 10,000 liters of anthrax, Scud missile warheads filled with deadly biological and chemical weapons, and drones capable of flying far beyond a 93-mile limit.
--"Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance -- not even today -- of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace." Hans Blix
Yes, even Hans Blix believed it was not unreasonable to believe that Saddam had WMDs.
In short, democrats, republicans, even international leaders had reasons to believe Iraq was developing weapons. Was it irrational to believe Saddam had weapons? I'd say no. Was it irrational to believe Saddam DIDN'T have weapons? Again, no.
The question is: How much evidence do we need before we decide that a man like Saddam needs to be invaded?
EDIT:
<img src='http://www.thesafetyvalve.com/archives/images/2002/lies.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
--"Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance -- not even today -- of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace." Hans Blix <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Whilst I recall that particular quote, I do not recall Hans Blix saying Iraq had 10,000 litres of anthrax. Indeed, if Blix had said that, the UN would have backed a war as Iraq would be in direct violation of UN sanctions. I recall him saying that Iraq couldn't account for 10,000 litres of anthrax, which is a whole other kettle of seafood. Do you have a link to the article in question?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's important to note that Jacques Chirac here does not say that Iraq has WMD's; he extrapolates that Iraq may have continued armament. That's why France, and indeed just about the whole UN, backed sending the UN inspectors back to determine exactly what was going on. Your quotes demonstrate that world leaders and political figures over the world were suspicious of Iraq (and with some justification; Iraq didn't have the best track record), and this explains their united support for a UN investigation.
What the UN didn't find though was evidence of these WMD programs. That's why so many countries opposed the US war; they wanted to give the UN more time and operate under UN authority. They also didn't see the same threat that the US did.
The NYTimes made the report, but it's buried and you'd have to pay for it. <a href='http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/blixiraqanthrax.html' target='_blank'>Here's</a> a surrogate.
Of course you're right about Chirac. But obviously he had some reason to believe that evidence existed that WMDs existed, at least enough to go parading in with inspectors. He didn't feel that it was enough to go to war on, maybe because he likes to be careful, or maybe because he had a vested interest in exploiting the <a href='http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004801' target='_blank'>oil for food</a> program.
Bush on the other hand, arguably with at least as much evidence, felt there was enough evidence to invade. Complete certainty is impossible. Bush's threshold was simply lower than Chirac's, for obvious reasons.
Bush on the other hand, arguably with at least as much evidence, felt there was enough evidence to invade. Complete certainty is impossible. Bush's threshold was simply lower than Chirac's, for obvious reasons.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well it wasn't just Chirac; the UN General Assembly almost unanimously supported sending inspectors back in. This demonstrates that the world as a whole was concerned about Iraq and wanted to know what was going on; and I believe that if WMDs had been found, or if Saddam threw the inspectors out, a UN approved army would be crossing the border about 24 hours after that. To suggest that the French or Germans wanted Saddam to have WMDs is a very far fetched claim, considering that they participated eagerly in the 1990 -91 Gulf War. And if you want to bring vested interests into it, the US had a lot to gain from invading Iraq: namely oil.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The NYTimes made the report, but it's buried and you'd have to pay for it. Here's a surrogate.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually my university pays quite a considerable sum to give it's students access to the NYTimes archives, so I might go digging later. However, judging from the article it seems my earlier claim was correct; Blix expressed concern that Iraq hadn't accounted for several WMD related projects. Which simply affirms what I said above: the world as a whole thought Saddam had to be checked out.
The US decided to jump the gun and go ahead before the UN inspectors had a chance to finish their job. Now it looks like they were wrong, and Iraq didn't have anything. The resulting diplomatic and political fallout is the price you pay when you rush these things and don't have solid evidence.
Compared to the ONE country who not only is proved to have WMD's, but has proven they are willing to use them against a <b>civilian</b> target, more than once? Or maybe the one that developed half the nerve agents currently in use worldwide? Or how about the one that sold nearly as much weaponry as the now defunct USSR to 'Freedom Fighters' (They're not terrorists if they're on your side, are they?)
That logic happily employed by the US means the tanks should now be advancing on Washington. Kettle, Teapot, calling each other black, all that.
- Shockwave
Obviously you do not understand military logic. In WWII we were <u>racing</u> against the german to get a nuke up first, either germany got it first (imagine the results of that) or we did. Now Japan's bombing was called for, estimates for invasion ran up to around 500,000. Not to go off topic, but when WMD are created in this day and age, it is for deterennce and intimidation.
[QUOTE] Or how about the one that sold nearly as much weaponry as the now defunct USSR to 'Freedom Fighters' (They're not terrorists if they're on your side, are they?) [/QUOTE]
I guess you are referring to afganistan, but I'm not sure. But I must say we fund "freedom fighters" all the time. Africa probaly is a bloodbath most of the time due to us, that really wouldn't surprise me. Not too mention South America, they have a lot of problems themselves. But the US past misdeeds really don't matter in this topic, all countries have in some form probaly supported terrorist activity. Whether in the open or not...
[/QUOTE]The US decided to jump the gun and go ahead before the UN inspectors had a chance to finish their job. [QUOTE]
I'm sorry, but did you really expect them to find anything if there really were any WMDs? Saddam has a horrible track record in that department. They have footage of inspectors being held up at the front gate, while at the same moment a dozen trucks drive out the back. What was that, a little spring cleaning? We couldn't have to war over something like, "they wouldn't let us in the front gate on time".
You might want to check up on your facts before posting something like that. Because in fact under resolution 1441 that the UN passed that put inspectors back in during 2002 - 2003, any failure of Iraqi co-operation would be grounds for a war. So yes, "they wouldn't let us in the front gate on time" would have ment war.
Also, you appear to have ignored the fact that during the afforementioned testing, the inspectors were allowed to go anywhere they pleased, whenever they pleased, without advance notification. The first warning most of these places had was when the UN inspectors turned up at the front gate and asked to be let inside. The Iraqis didn't stall them or restrict them; the inspectors went exactly where they wanted to go. And the most incriminating thing they found were some rockets that might have been able to go 10km or so beyond the allowable limit of 150km. Which Iraq prompted agreed to destroy.
<a href='http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm' target='_blank'>Resolution 1441</a>
Take particular note of this section: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/SC7asdelivered.htm' target='_blank'>Hans Blix's March 7th Report</a>
Note in here: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Inspections in Iraq resumed on 27 November 2002. In matters relating to process, notably prompt access to sites, we have faced relatively few difficulties and certainly much less than those that were faced by UNSCOM in the period 1991 to 1998. This may well be due to the strong outside pressure.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Also, in referance to your earlier statement that Iraq had mobile biochemical labs (We have even found mobile biological transportion vehicles, now why would they need those?) :
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As I noted on 14 February, intelligence authorities have claimed that weapons of mass destruction are moved around Iraq by trucks and, in particular, that there are mobile production units for biological weapons. The Iraqi side states that such activities do not exist. Several inspections have taken place at declared and undeclared sites in relation to mobile production facilities. Food testing mobile laboratories and mobile workshops have been seen, as well as large containers with seed processing equipment. No evidence of proscribed activities have so far been found.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
EDIT: Oh yeah, forgot about the missiles:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As of today, there is more. While during our meetings in Baghdad, the Iraqi side tried to persuade us that the Al Samoud 2 missiles they have declared fall within the permissible range set by the Security Council, the calculations of an international panel of experts led us to the opposite conclusion. Iraq has since accepted that these missiles and associated items be destroyed and has started the process of destruction under our supervision. The destruction undertaken constitutes a substantial measure of disarmament – indeed, the first since the middle of the 1990s. We are not watching the breaking of toothpicks. Lethal weapons are being destroyed. However, I must add that no destruction has happened today. I hope it’s a temporary break.
To date, 34 Al Samoud 2 missiles, including 4 training missiles, 2 combat warheads, 1 launcher and 5 engines have been destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision. Work is continuing to identify and inventory the parts and equipment associated with the Al Samoud 2 programme.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Obviously you do not understand military logic. In WWII we were <u>racing</u> against the german to get a nuke up first, either germany got it first (imagine the results of that) or we did. Now Japan's bombing was called for, estimates for invasion ran up to around 500,000. Not to go off topic, but when WMD are created in this day and age, it is for deterennce and intimidation. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Two points.
1. I didn't see the bit where Germany got the nuke, Japan did.
"Germany has nearly completing their nuclear weapon! Quick, bomb Japan!" <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif' /><!--endemo-->
2. They still bombed 2 <b>civilian</b> targets. They didn't even try for military ones.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But the US past misdeeds really don't matter in this topic, all countries have in some form probaly supported terrorist activity. Whether in the open or not...
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So, by that logic when Saddam said "I don't have any more weapons, I destroyed them last time" we should have forgot about the last Iraq war, believed his statement and not invaded. If you forget past misdeeds (or only when it's your own past misdeeds) you can justify <b>anything</b>.
Heck, now many historians are saying Japan already decided to surrender before Truman decided to drop the bomb; however, it's not unconditional surrender. After they dropped the bomb, they accept the condition anyway. Look it up on the internet, there should be plenty of this **** on google.
[/Hijack]
Collin Powells, a very trustworthy and influential man for both Democrats and Republicans, and some other prominent figures at the White House tell everyone there are WMDs. Of course, I will believe it too, nevermind Clinton, Al Gore, and John Kerry.
yeah, hes got sources, solid sources a'plenty..
just a shame none of them turned out to be correct..
Japan and Germany traded technology with each other. I do believe Germany actually had the capability, and perhaps already had, a nuclear device built before its fall ( or at least a mockup/prototype )... The scientists just didn't believe it was ready to be deployed. Germany actually attempted to send uranium to Japan. So the race to acquire nuclear technology was against both Germany and Japan. Another thing is that the estimate for casualties was closer to 1 million for the invasion of Japan... Japanese casualties were much higher. The bombs actually saved lives if you look at it that way. Japan was not going to surrender before the bombs were dropped.
Now lets get this back on topic and stop spreading factoids that have no bearing on this discussion and are also wrong.
So now that we're on topic....
Why should we ever have given the benefit of doubt to some like Saddam? To me that is a rediculous notion.
Two points.
1. I didn't see the bit where Germany got the nuke, Japan did.
"Germany has nearly completing their nuclear weapon! Quick, bomb Japan!"
2. They still bombed 2 civilian targets. They didn't even try for military ones.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You ignore the conditions in both Japan and Germany and the culutral difference. A land siege of japan would have resulted in much higher death count than the
2 atomic bombs had (dont believe me, look at the taking of Okinawa). Forget the civilian arguement because Japan had been training women and children to fight. Could you imagine the hit our troops moral would take haveing to face 12 year olds with guns? It is unfortunate that we bombed them, but the alternative to the bombing was not desirable.
Yes Germany was a great threat, but they were surrounded by opposition on everyside. Germany's culture did not encourage traditional non-combatants to take up a weapon and defend themselves. Nor did the culture dictate death before dishonor.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So, by that logic when Saddam said "I don't have any more weapons, I destroyed them last time" we should have forgot about the last Iraq war, believed his statement and not invaded. If you forget past misdeeds (or only when it's your own past misdeeds) you can justify anything. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The difference between our past deeds and Sadams past deed, is the Sadam's atrocities were commited by one man. You are saying we cannot speak because of events that did mot happen in most of our life times, because will not forgeting something someone has done 10 years ago that has relevance with what they are doing today. Thats like saying you cannot argue with me because 1000 years ago your ancestor clubed my ancestor to death with a bone.
Good point. If he had nukes, then what would happen in the long-run? He had a history of terrorizing his neighbors and even invasion of kuwait that started the gulf war. If he used one of these (he has used WMDs in the past, biological) then imagine the public outcry then after 911? I would rather be wrong and get Saddam out of power then be right and have him with WMDs.
he deserved what happened to him, and i'm fed up with legal loop holes protecting the truly evil from getting what they asked for, and i'm glad they did it.
Blix expressed concern that Iraq hadn't accounted for several WMD related projects. Which simply affirms what I said above: the world as a whole thought Saddam had to be checked out. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First, I'm not talking about the Gulf War, i was talking about the oil-for-food program, which came after that war. That's where the French and Germans and profited.
I have no reason to believe that if Saddam threw the inspectors out that the UN would have done anything whatsoever. Like I said, France and Germany had vetos and a vested interest in keeping Saddam in power. Saddam had on <b>several</b> occasions thrown the inspectors out or otherwise hampered them. According to the cease fire agreement the UN was obligated to invade Iraq. But they didn't, nor did they do so much as wag their finger at Saddam for commiting these blatant transgressions.
About Blix: Blix said they had 10000 litres of anthrax. Bush felt that even the remote possibility of Saddam having said anthrax was tantamount to UN failure and reason enough to invade. Blix disagreed, but so what? That's a difference of opinion, to which mine lies with Bush.
As I said, it's about threshold levels of certainty. Seeing as France and Germany would face no repercussions if Saddam had WMDs, they were much more lax than the US.
Just a question, does anyone here not realize Clinton actually launched attacks against Iraq after it kicked Weapon Inspectors out?
Clinton's foreign policy is not so "soft" as most Republicans want you to think.
Kosovo, Iraq, Haiti...
Why all of the sudden, Bush is THE wartime president who saved the world from a madman with WMD, but not Clinton... the one who stopped genocide?
Ok, yes. I'm a hijacking Clinton Fanboy.
Right now, regarding WMD.
it's White House folks VS. everyone else
I don't like the odd.
Because Bush knew how to go about waging a war, and who to appoint to lead it.
Clinton's mismanagement of military power did make a lot of differences to many people, but also bogged down the American military in unnecessary and costly extended deployments overseas.
And while you mention Kosovo and Haiti, you might also mention Bosnia and Somalia, both of them arguable failures of US power overseas.
Anyway. Do I think Saddam had WMDs? Of course. Do I think intelligence agencies grossly overestimated what kind of stockpile he had? Of course.
But, do I think the war was justified, and that an unstable man who had been known for gassing his own people was an element that needed to be removed to promote peaceful stabilization in the region?
You bet I do.
*bangs head into table repeatedly*
Please read Resolution 1441. The UN was NOT giving Saddam the benefit of the doubt. In no uncertain terms the resolution laid down that there were deep suspicions about Saddam's WMD capabilities and that if Saddam did not co-operate immediatly, he would be invaded. The resolution clearly states that this was Saddam's last chance. The language of 1441 is very strong and was backed up almost unanimously by the entire General Assembly and all 5 vetoing members of the Security Council.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->First, I'm not talking about the Gulf War, i was talking about the oil-for-food program, which came after that war. That's where the French and Germans and profited.
I have no reason to believe that if Saddam threw the inspectors out that the UN would have done anything whatsoever. Like I said, France and Germany had vetos and a vested interest in keeping Saddam in power. Saddam had on several occasions thrown the inspectors out or otherwise hampered them. According to the cease fire agreement the UN was obligated to invade Iraq. But they didn't, nor did they do so much as wag their finger at Saddam for commiting these blatant transgressions.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Something isn't right here with your logic. France, Germany, Russia and China all fully backed resolution 1441. Now if it's in their interests not to see Iraq invaded why back this up? 1441 was a few steps short of an outright declaration of war in Iraq, yet these nations who you claim had a vested interest in seeing Saddam hang around fully backed it.
So I've gone and found every UN resolution cited in Resolution 1441.
<a href='http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0661.htm' target='_blank'>Resolution 661</a>
<a href='http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0678.htm' target='_blank'>Resolution 678</a>
<a href='http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0686.htm' target='_blank'>Resolution 686</a>
<a href='http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm' target='_blank'>Resolution 687</a>
Note this part: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 7. Invites Iraq to reaffirm unconditionally its obligations under the Geneva Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, signed at Geneva on 17 June 1925, and to ratify the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction, of 10 April 1972;
8. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of:
(a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities;
(b) All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities;
9. Decides, for the implementation of paragraph 8 above, the following:
(a) Iraq shall submit to the Secretary-General, within fifteen days of the adoption of the present resolution, a declaration of the locations, amounts and types of all items specified in paragraph 8 and agree to urgent, on-site inspection as specified below;
(b) The Secretary-General, in consultation with the appropriate Governments and, where appropriate, with the Director-General of the World Health Organization, within forty-five days of the passage of the present resolution, shall develop, and submit to the Council for approval, a plan calling for the completion of the following acts within forty-five days of such approval:
(i) The forming of a Special Commission, which shall carry out immediate on-site inspection of Iraq's biological, chemical and missile capabilities, based on Iraq's declarations and the designation of any additional locations by the Special Commission itself;
(ii) The yielding by Iraq of possession to the Special Commission for destruction, removal or rendering harmless, taking into account the requirements of public safety, of all items specified under paragraph 8 (a) above, including items at the additional locations designated by the Special Commission under paragraph 9 (b) (i) above and the destruction by Iraq, under the supervision of the Special Commission, of all its missile capabilities, including launchers, as specified under paragraph 8 (b) above;
(iii) The provision by the Special Commission of the assistance and cooperation to the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency required in paragraphs 12 and 13 below;
10. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally undertake not to use, develop, construct or acquire any of the items specified in paragraphs 8 and 9 above and requests the Secretary-General, in consultation with the Special Commission, to develop a plan for the future ongoing monitoring and verification of Iraq's compliance with this paragraph, to be submitted to the Security Council for approval within one hundred and twenty days of the passage of this resolution;
11. Invites Iraq to reaffirm unconditionally its obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of 1 July 1968;<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is the building block for subsequent resolutions regarding WMDs in Iraq. It does NOT say what the consequenses for Iraq will be if they do not comply.
<a href='http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0688.htm' target='_blank'>Resolution 688</a>
<a href='http://www.caabu.org/press/documents/unscr-resolution-707.html' target='_blank'>Resolution 707</a>
<a href='http://www.caabu.org/press/documents/unscr-resolution-715.html' target='_blank'>Resolution 715</a>
<a href='http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0986.htm' target='_blank'>Resolution 986</a>
This resolution outlines the Oil-For-Food program. Note:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->1.Authorizes States, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs 3 (a), 3 (b) and 4 of resolution 661 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions, to permit the import of petroleum and petroleum products originating in Iraq, including financial and other essential transactions directly relating thereto, sufficient to produce a sum not exceeding a total of one billion United States dollars every 90 days for the purposes set out in this resolution and subject to the following conditions:<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your article you linked to did not seem to explain exactly how any of the states involved were in violation of this Resolution; this resolution simply allows for Iraq to export oil in exchange for imports of food and medicine. As far as I can tell, nothing France or Germany did was in violation of this resolution; Saddam may very well have abused the program however, which is why it was cited in 1441.
<a href='http://www.caabu.org/press/documents/unscr-resolution-1284.html' target='_blank'>Resolution 1284</a>
The important thing is note is that none of these resolutions, which comprise the complete list of the resolutions cited in Resolution 1441, lay down expressly what would happen to Iraq if they failed to comply. Resolution 1441 did that, formally stating that Iraq was in breech of previous resolutions and that it was being given one final chance before military action. None of the previous resolutions said this. Thus:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Saddam had on several occasions thrown the inspectors out or otherwise hampered them. According to the cease fire agreement the UN was obligated to invade Iraq.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No the UN was NOT obligated to invade Iraq. Resolution 1441 gave them that power; none of the previous resolutions did. The UN was in the process of determining whether Iraq was in compliance with 1441 when the US invaded. 1441 was the product of deep seated concerns amongst leading world nations about Iraq's WMD programs and a mutual belief that Iraq had been in violation of previous resolutions.
... none of these resolutions, which comprise the complete list of the resolutions cited in Resolution 1441, lay down expressly what would happen to Iraq if they failed to comply.
...
No the UN was NOT obligated to invade Iraq. Resolution 1441 gave them that power; none of the previous resolutions did. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The key word here is "a few steps short". So long as Saddam was in power, they could profit from the oil-for-food, which they did immensely. They can pass all the resolutions they want, but they so long as they have their vetos the US can do absolutely nothing.
Under the ceasefire agreement of the Gulf War, Saddam was forced to give up his weapons unconditionally without hestitation or ruse. Obviously he violated this repeatedly, thus continuing the Gulf War. And what did the UN do? Pass another resolution. And another. And another. Over and over and over again. Even in 2003 Hans Blix said Saddam failed to account for the list of WMDs despite his ability to do so.
I'll say it again:
France, Germany and Russia had a vested interest in keeping Saddam in power. The resolutions they passed were for show, knowing full well they could veto any attempt by the US to end the endless passing of resolutions.
Based on the same evidence, France decided not to act, and the US did. Given the quotes that Chirac and even Blix had spoken, there was more than enough cause to invade Iraq. The US was simply sick of dealing with Saddam and his transgressions over the last 12 years.
Do you realise how little sense that makes? Essentially you're saying that France and Germany, despite every piece of evidence to the contrary, would at the last minute veto any resolution. Of course they profited from the oil-for-food program; did it occur to you that they weren't the only ones? Iraq could sell oil to any state.
France and Germany, Russia and China all supported Resolution 1441 and all previous resolutions against Iraq. To suggest that they were lieing all along and that their support, and participation in the first Gulf War ment absolutly nothing is completely unfounded. You have provided no eivdence to suggest that any of the nations mentioned above would have taken that course of action.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Under the ceasefire agreement of the Gulf War, Saddam was forced to give up his weapons unconditionally without hestitation or ruse. Obviously he violated this repeatedly, thus continuing the Gulf War. And what did the UN do? Pass another resolution. And another. And another. Over and over and over again. Even in 2003 Hans Blix said Saddam failed to account for the list of WMDs despite his ability to do so. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The UN did not pass a resolution saying that Saddam was in violation nor did they pass a resolution outlineing what action would be taken in that event until 1441. The UN you must remember is an organistion devoted to peace, hence they try to explore every availible course of action until there is no alternative to war. Thats why they took their time, and it bears mentioning that in the period between 1991 and 2003 the UN recorded that Saddam had destroyed large quantities of his WMD stockpile. Indeed, in the failure of the US to find anything after nearly a year of occupation tells us that in fact the UN process worked: Saddam had been disarmed.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->France, Germany and Russia had a vested interest in keeping Saddam in power. The resolutions they passed were for show, knowing full well they could veto any attempt by the US to end the endless passing of resolutions.
Based on the same evidence, France decided not to act, and the US did. Given the quotes that Chirac and even Blix had spoken, there was more than enough cause to invade Iraq. The US was simply sick of dealing with Saddam and his transgressions over the last 12 years.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Obviously you did not take the time to read through the documents I provided, which clearly state the intentions of the French, Russians, Germans and Chinese governments: the complete disarmament of Iraq. Nothing within these documents suggests that these governments were not committed to peacefully disarming Saddam. Finally, it should be noted that not a single one of the UN documents gave the US free reign to decide when or if Saddam was in violation of the resolutions: that was a task only the UN could undertake.
I've had enough. I have labouriously documented the material relating to this topic and supported my arguement with it. Yourself and other participants in this thread have not taken the time to read these sources and do not support your own arguement with documents, only opinions. In light of this I am washing my hands of this thread. I have no interest in continuing to debate this topic with people who refuse to read the relevant material.
Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright (February 1998): "Iraq is a long way from here, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
In 2002, Al Gore said, "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Also in 2002, Sen. Ted Kennedy said, "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. John Kerry, Democratic presidential front-runner, said in 2002, "I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force ? if necessary ? to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
In January 2003, Kerry added, "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real."
"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others
AND MY PERSONAL FAVORITES
"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002
A March 8 2003, New York Times article quoted a 173-page dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, by chief U.N. inspector <b>Hans Blix</b>. It said Baghdad may possess about 10,000 liters of anthrax, Scud missile warheads filled with deadly biological and chemical weapons, and drones capable of flying far beyond a 93-mile limit.
--"Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance -- not even today -- of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace." Hans Blix
Yes, even Hans Blix believed it was not unreasonable to believe that Saddam had WMDs.
In short, democrats, republicans, even international leaders had reasons to believe Iraq was developing weapons. Was it irrational to believe Saddam had weapons? I'd say no. Was it irrational to believe Saddam DIDN'T have weapons? Again, no.
The question is: How much evidence do we need before we decide that a man like Saddam needs to be invaded?
EDIT:
<img src='http://www.thesafetyvalve.com/archives/images/2002/lies.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image' /> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm sorry but using a comic strip to try and justify one mans stupidity makes me lose all respect for the person who posted it <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Like I say, its been done to death.
Did yout take the time to read the provided links about the exploitation of the oil for food program, basically Iraq used it to bribe. In case you didn't here are two more articals.
<a href='http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20040321-101405-2593r.htm' target='_blank'>Washington Times artical</a>
<a href='http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/21054.htm' target='_blank'>New York Post</a>
What you posted are official UN resolutions. If these coutries did accept bribes than of course they are going to be two face about things. The resolutions will do nothing to disprove their ulterior motives, as they are just try to look good. They could pass all the resolutions they wanted because enough people had been bribed to veto any action that hurt Sadam's rule(weapon's inspectors do not threaten his rule).
I have to go to class, to be continued............................. <!--emo&::nerdy::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/nerd.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='nerd.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3549679.stm' target='_blank'>BBC report on libel claim persued by one of the alleged bribe receivers</a>
Irrelevant. Totally irrelevant. The question asked was:
"Was there evidence that Iraq had WMDs?"
That answer is clearly yes, by not just the US, but by France, and Blix himself. The post hoc actions of said evidence simply differs.
And once again, it has to do with the self-interest of each nation involved. For the US it was national security, for France it was profits. You have provided no evidence to the contrary save some false-front resolutions. They would oppose military action until the evidence was so overwhelming (say, Saddam attacking Kuwait again). It doesn't matter that any other nations were profiting from Saddam.
Nothing like ad hominem fallacies to prove your point eh Communist? I guess that little humorous strip erases the past and the quotes of those people.
MUAH HA HA HA HA!!
Okay, I quit this one forever on that point.