Downing Street Memo

Cxwf · June 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legat @ Jun 20 2005, 12:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
As Spooge already pointed out, doesn't this go towards proving that they really believed Saddam had WMD? If they knew he didn't and were just inventing stories, they wouldn't bother discussing what would happen if he actually used his WMDs. The intelligence on Iraqi WMDs was mistaken, but it was real--not lies.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

If they had had absolutely definite intelligence (as they had claimed) that Saddam had nuclear capabilities, (yes, the US claimed their existance prior to the war, specifically refering to the "Nuclear Bomb" at least once) the war would not have happened in the first place. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Absolutely definate intelligence is not required, only enough intelligence to suggest a pretty good chance. If you knew there was a 100% chance your mortal enemy was getting a weapon he could kill you with, tomorrow, you'd want to do something about it, right? Now what if it was just an 80% chance? I suspect you'd still probably respond somehow. In fact, you'd probably act even on a 50% chance.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I expected from the very beginning, that there are no signifficant WMD capabilities in Iraq.
Why? Two reasons:

1)
Because the country was under embargo for more than a decade. How could they possibly afford them? Left alone how would they aquire the know-how and the nesessary ressources under nearly total diplomatic isolation and military surveillance from the US 24/7? They weren't even able to maintain their industry...</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

You know, someone came up with the know how the first time, without anyone to tell him how to do it. It could be done again--and it would be easier, because the basic principles are already well known. You can look them up online with hardly any trouble at all. (I've seen a website explaining, in detail, how to make a home-made, functional Hydrogen Bomb, and how you can obtain the necessary materials from your local chemistry supply store.)

Also, the country was not exactly <i>poor</i> during the embargo. Iraq was still selling oil for millions of dollars the entire time. The citizens were poor...but thats just because Saddam kept most of the oil money for himself. He could afford anything he wanted to buy, trust me.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>2)
If Saddam had had a Nuke, he would have shown it to the world and nobody could have done anything. A Nuke means political sovereignty. Since the Cuba Crisis, a Nuke has been the absolute reasurance against any invasion.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

That part is probably true. But, on the other hand, it was not required that he have a completed, functional Nuclear Weapon. If Saddam had a nuclear weapon in development, that would be ready in a few months, or in a year, we'd still want to act. Similarly, chemical and biological weapons also count as WMDs...and we didn't want Saddam to have those either. And my father fought in the invasion of Iraq, and they spent endless amounts of time and effort preparing to be hit by chemical and biological attacks that never came--I'm certain the military truly believed that Saddam had Chemical and Biological WMDs, if not Nuclear.

<span style='color:red'>(Offending comment removed) Sirus: Please be nice. </span>

Cxwf · June 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Splinter Steve? @ Jun 20 2005, 04:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (NGE @ Jun 20 2005, 03:58 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Antrel @ Jun 19 2005, 10:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Very similar to Bush's opinion on Saddam's WMDs. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Bush's oppinion = based on evidence

Rycroft's oppinion = based on speculation

So by any logical sort of thinking, one can trust Bush but one cannot trust this document as anything more than historical evidence describing the feelings of the British governement at the time. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Sorry if I missed the sarcasm, but...

<a href='http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=opinion' target='_blank'>http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=opinion</a>

Consult it for both the spelling and the definition. An opinion is <b>not substantiated</b> by proof. Thus in your analogy, both opinions while "based on" different things as you say, one which we know to be definitively wrong (Bush's) without an argument, are both just speculation. So basically one speculation which is absolutely wrong makes the individual who made it more trustworthy than another guy who made a speculation which is up for debate. No matter which side you take on what Rycroft said, they're either both liars or Bush is the only one we shouldn't be trusting.

Then again the analogy was a joke, right?  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Even though I'm on NGEs side over all, I think that was totally the wrong response to make to Antrel. After all, Bush turned out to be wrong. Why are we defending his opinion in this case?

The proper response is this...

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (NGE)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>But it is his oppinion. One man's oppinion does not speak the truth. I fail to see any controversy.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Antrel @ Jun 19 2005, 10:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Very similar to Bush's opinion on Saddam's WMDs. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

@Antrel--Exactly!! You hit the nail on the head!! Even though I'm sure you meant that as a slam against Bush, it illustrates NGEs point perfectly. If Bush could be wrong with his "slam dunk" evidence of Iraqi WMDs, why couldn't this guy be wrong with his opinion of Bush's policy?

moultano · June 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ Jun 20 2005, 06:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> You know, someone came up with the know how the first time, without anyone to tell him how to do it. It could be done again--and it would be easier, because the basic principles are already well known. You can look them up online with hardly any trouble at all. (I've seen a website explaining, in detail, how to make a home-made, functional Hydrogen Bomb, and how you can obtain the necessary materials from your local chemistry supply store.)
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Care to explain how you can go about getting enriched uranium or plutonium from your local chemistry supply store?

Cxwf · June 2005

Well, you can't--but you can get unenriched uranium, and then enrich it yourself.

American Nuclear Weapons used highly refined and enriched nuclear materials for the biggest possible blast--but you don't have to make them that high quality. You can make much lower quality nukes that will still make a huge hole in a city. Example--Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both hit with very low-yield low-tech nuclear weapons. Today's nuclear armaments are dozens or even hundreds of times more powerful, but that doesn't make the Hiroshima and Nagasaki explosions ineffective. They were downright deadly.

moultano · June 2005

Firstly, you were originally talking about hydrogen bombs, not fission bombs. Entirely different level of technology. Secondly, Uranium enrichment is difficult. <a href='http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/uranium.htm' target='_blank'>read up.</a> Thirdly, what relevance does this have to the topic at hand? Clearly it isn't an accepted fact that people can make hydrogen bombs from chemicals "at your local chemistry supply store," or the entire debate over whether Saddam had nuclear weapons would be completely mute. (It is mute, but because we know he didn't have anything approaching that capability, not because nuclear weapons are so easy that anyone can have them. And if I recall correctly, we know that Bush knew that there was no evidence for Saddam having nuclear weapons prior to the invasion.)

To return to the subject at hand, even if you do not think that the memo is a "smoking gun" as some have called it (and I would be inclined to agree that it isn't) do you think the matter warrants an investigation, or at least a formal response from the Bush administration?

Cxwf · June 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Jun 20 2005, 07:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Firstly, you were originally talking about hydrogen bombs, not fission bombs. Entirely different level of technology. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Ah, but Fusion bombs can't be detonated by a simple fuse like conventional bombs. They require fairly impressive trigger explosions before the fusion will even begin. Most Fusion bombs therefore use small fission bombs to produce that trigger. =)

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Secondly, Uranium enrichment is difficult. <a href='http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/uranium.htm' target='_blank'>read up.</a></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Quotes from your site--

"Uranium gun-assembled weapons are the easiest of all nuclear devices to design and build. It is generally conceded to be impossible to prevent any nation having the requisite amount of HEU from building one or more gun-assembled weapons. Therefore, the acquisition of significant quantities of 235 U or a facility in which to separate the fissile material is an indicator that the acquiring state could be in the process of gaining a rudimentary nuclear capability."

"The first large-scale uranium enrichment facility, the Y-12 plant at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, used EMIS in devices called "calutrons." The process was abandoned in the United States because of its high consumption of electricity, but was adopted by the Iraqis because of its relative simplicity and their ability to procure the magnet material without encountering technology transfer obstacles."

Oh look--the Iraqis had Uranium Enrichment plants!! What a shock!!

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Thirdly, what relevance does this have to the topic at hand? Clearly it isn't an accepted fact that people can make hydrogen bombs from chemicals "at your local chemistry supply store," or the entire debate over whether Saddam had nuclear weapons would be completely mute.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Well, the set of instructions I found actually works just fine, with the sole exception that it understates the difficulty of enriching uranium. Any country can get itself some unenriched uranium, but enriching it to weapons grade is a fairly big effort. But not insurmountable--the technologies exist to do it in many different ways (as listed by your website), and the main problem with most of them is that they are not economical. But if you are a dictator with years to spend and willing to direct most of your countries military budget towards enrichment, it can be done. (Oh, and its "moot", not "mute".)

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>(It is mute, but because we know he didn't have anything approaching that capability, not because nuclear weapons are so easy that anyone can have them. And if I recall correctly, we know that Bush knew that there was no evidence for Saddam having nuclear weapons prior to the invasion.)</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

He didn't have functional nuclear weapons--thats a far cry from saying he didn't have anything approaching that capability. If Saddam hadn't been forced to work his program around UN inspections intent on preventing Uranium Enrichment, he could have had nuclear weapons years ago. And as for your recollection--I point you back to my previous post. If Bush believed Saddam was near <i>acquiring</i> nuclear weapons, that would be plenty enough reason to act. It would be foolish to wait until he actually had them.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>To return to the subject at hand, even if you do not think that the memo is a "smoking gun" as some have called it (and I would be inclined to agree that it isn't) do you think the matter warrants an investigation, or at least a formal response from the Bush administration?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

If it had come out before the war--certainly. If it had even come out before the election, probably. But now, what does it matter, really? What would it change if you knew today with absolute certainty that Bush knew Saddam did not have a nuclear weapons program? Its obvious that even in that case, Bush still thought he at least had a Chemical/Biological weapons program, which still counts as WMDs.

Antrel · June 2005

What kind of munitions have we found so far?

Splinter_Steve · June 2005

He thought, and was wrong (if you're still entertaining the idea...other people in this thread have already gone into that one). You're right though, it really doesn't change anything right now. To sit here and whine about it is just gonna drive the "two americas" further apart. Nothing else. I just care that everyone knows how big of a mistake this was, regardless of how it started, or how anything could or couldn't have been done differently. He can't run for another term, and he's not going to get impeached. And the troops, unfortunately, are not home yet. Just another historical precedent to look back on for next time.

moultano · June 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ Jun 20 2005, 09:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> If it had come out before the war--certainly. If it had even come out before the election, probably. But now, what does it matter, really? What would it change if you knew today with absolute certainty that Bush knew Saddam did not have a nuclear weapons program? Its obvious that even in that case, Bush still thought he at least had a Chemical/Biological weapons program, which still counts as WMDs.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
That isn't the relevant part for me. I'm wondering about the sentence where the memo states that Bush was fixing the facts. If this is true, and goes unpunished, willfully, then you are accepting that our presidents have a right to lie to congress with no repercussions. I don't know if the wording of the memo is accurate, or if the impressions of the writer are accurate, but with no less than the future of American democracy at stake, I think it warrants at least an explanation.

Legat · June 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Absolutely definate intelligence is not required, only enough intelligence to suggest a pretty good chance. If you knew there was a 100% chance your mortal enemy was getting a weapon he could kill you with, tomorrow, you'd want to do something about it, right? Now what if it was just an 80% chance? I suspect you'd still probably respond somehow. In fact, you'd probably act even on a 50% chance.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

You missed the point.

If the US had hints about Saddam actually aquiring such a device, they would have determined whether he actually has one or not <i>before</i> the strike. Because the mere existance of such a device could mean a desaster to any invasion force.
I suspect even Mr Bush is not dumb enough to risk an entire army in a case of questionable intelligence.
In your scenario, where they expected Saddam to achieve nuclear capability in a certain amount of time, they would have <i>definately confirmed</i> the info to rule out the possibility of a nuclear retaliation against the US fleet or armed forces in Iraq.
That would mean that they had known the whereabouts of Iraqi WMD production and we would have seen them taking those places apart on the news....
Besides, they claimed that Saddam did actually <i>possess</i> WMDs and that their location was known to the CIA.
This was no false or inaccurate intel. It was a lie. Simple. Get used to it.
Like it was a lie that Saddam was related to the 9/11 attack.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You know, someone came up with the know how the first time, without anyone to tell him how to do it. It could be done again--and it would be easier, because the basic principles are already well known. You can look them up online with hardly any trouble at all. (I've seen a website explaining, in detail, how to make a home-made, functional Hydrogen Bomb, and how you can obtain the necessary materials from your local chemistry supply store.)</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

You are suffering from a severe lack of reality my friend. The myth of the nuclear bomb built by a cranky scientist in his cellar is not viable exept maybe for Doc Brown.
That "figuered out the first time" thing was a highly risky process where they put more and more matereial together to determine the critical mass...without knowing when that actually would happen....
Of course, the theoretical foundations are well establsied and quite simple. I tell that everbody when I'm arguing for nuclear power. A nuclar plant is idiot prove technology. But hey... even that went wrong at least once you know?
Constructing a nuclear device with reasonable destructive capabilites is difficult enough, but you must also have the means to deliver it!

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Well, you can't--but you can get unenriched uranium, and then enrich it yourself.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Yes, but you need facilities, personnel and material. Three factors that are not given in a politically isolated and economically dead banana republic like Iraq had become one.
In case you don't seem to understand, Saddam was barely able to sustain his power( and his wealth ...) while his country was deteriorating under the embargo. Iraq was not ever in a position to aquire nuclear weapons since Desert Storm.
In case you dont understand, I explain it to you: <a href='http://www.mees.com/postedarticles/finance/iraq/a45n40b01.htm' target='_blank'>Iraq.is.economically.dead!</a>
It has become a third world country. The poorest in the middle east.
Hell would have frozen before Saddam could possibly have aquired a Nuke.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Oh look--the Iraqis had Uranium Enrichment plants!! What a shock!!</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Oh look! the Israelis took care of them back in the 80s!! What a shock!!
<a href='http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/oct03/wmd.asp' target='_blank'>Israel's Attack on Osirak</a>

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>That part is probably true. But, on the other hand, it was not required that he have a completed, functional Nuclear Weapon. If Saddam had a nuclear weapon in development, that would be ready in a few months, or in a year, we'd still want to act. Similarly, chemical and biological weapons also count as WMDs...and we didn't want Saddam to have those either. And my father fought in the invasion of Iraq, and they spent endless amounts of time and effort preparing to be hit by chemical and biological attacks that never came--I'm certain the military truly believed that Saddam had Chemical and Biological WMDs, if not Nuclear.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Of course they expected chemical and bacterial weapons. It would have been foolish not to do since Saddam used them in the Iran/Iraq conflict. But never the less, the same problem remains as with the nukes. The US claimed they knew of their actual <i>existance</i> and whereabouts. And If you <i>know</i> about them, you should be able to find them later....don't you think?

<span style='color:red'>(Offending comments removed) Sirus: If someone makes an ad hominem attack, simply ignore it. I'll do my best to clean up these threads as time allows. </span>

Edit: some grammar...

Also, Sirius I will honor your request although I must clarify here that I did not post anything insulting in the part you edited, exept quoting the initial messege, in order to point out that I found it inapropriate. Which you seem to agree.

Cxwf · June 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legat @ Jun 21 2005, 02:36 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Absolutely definate intelligence is not required, only enough intelligence to suggest a pretty good chance. If you knew there was a 100% chance your mortal enemy was getting a weapon he could kill you with, tomorrow, you'd want to do something about it, right? Now what if it was just an 80% chance? I suspect you'd still probably respond somehow. In fact, you'd probably act even on a 50% chance.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

You missed the point.

If the US had hints about Saddam actually aquiring such a device, they would have determined whether he actually has one or not <i>before</i> the strike. Because the mere existance of such a device could mean a desaster to any invasion force.
I suspect even Mr Bush is not dumb enough to risk an entire army in a case of questionable intelligence.
In your scenario, where they expected Saddam to achieve nuclear capability in a certain amount of time, they would have <i>definately confirmed</i> the info to rule out the possibility of a nuclear retaliation against the US fleet or armed forces in Iraq.
That would mean that they had known the whereabouts of Iraqi WMD production and we would have seen them taking those places apart on the news....
Besides, they claimed that Saddam did actually <i>possess</i> WMDs and that their location was known to the CIA.
This was no false or inaccurate intel. It was a lie. Simple. Get used to it.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Right--I've never thought the US believed Saddam had a functional bomb. I don't think they said that even in the lead up to the war. They were worried about Saddam's program to <i>produce</i> a bomb, but as several people have already pointed out, once he finished making one there would be no further question of an invasion. Yes, they said Saddam had WMDs--but NOT ALL WMDs ARE NUKES!! The US believed that Saddam was preparing nuclear weapons, and already had chemical and biological WMDs. No lies there.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Like it was a lie that Saddam was related to the 9/11 attack.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Ok, that one's a lie. But you forget, that wasn't a lie put forward by Bush--that was a lie put forward by his political opposition, around the next election, to try to confuse people about what Bush had said to justify the war. Bush never tried to tie Saddam to 9/11.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You know, someone came up with the know how the first time, without anyone to tell him how to do it. It could be done again--and it would be easier, because the basic principles are already well known. You can look them up online with hardly any trouble at all. (I've seen a website explaining, in detail, how to make a home-made, functional Hydrogen Bomb, and how you can obtain the necessary materials from your local chemistry supply store.)</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

You are suffering from a severe lack of reality my friend. The myth of the nuclear bomb built by a cranky scientist in his cellar is not viable exept maybe for Doc Brown.
That "figuered out the first time" thing was a highly risky process where they put more and more matereial together to determine the critical mass...without knowing when that actually would happen....
Of course, the theoretical foundations are well establsied and quite simple. I tell that everbody when I'm arguing for nuclear power. A nuclar plant is idiot prove technology. But hey... even that went wrong at least once you know?
Constructing a nuclear device with reasonable destructive capabilites is difficult enough, but you must also have the means to deliver it!</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Building it in your cellar required the access to already partially enriched uranium that you can find here in the US, as controls here aren't as tight as in other parts of the world. But building it in an industrial plant is relatively simple, just time consuming. And delivery? We know Iraq had medium range missiles capable of delivering it as far as Israel. And its also possible a nuclear weapon could be delivered by ground, under the same principles as a suicide truck bomb.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Well, you can't--but you can get unenriched uranium, and then enrich it yourself.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Yes, but you need facilities, personnel and material. Three factors that are not given in a politically isolated and economically dead banana republic like Iraq had become one.
In case you don't seem to understand, Saddam was barely able to sustain his power( and his wealth ...) while his country was deteriorating under the embargo. Iraq was not ever in a position to aquire nuclear weapons since Desert Storm.
In case you dont understand, I explain it to you: <a href='http://www.mees.com/postedarticles/finance/iraq/a45n40b01.htm' target='_blank'>Iraq.is.economically.dead!</a>
It has become a third world country. The poorest in the middle east.
Hell would have frozen before Saddam could possibly have aquired a Nuke.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Iraq in general was only deteriorating because Saddam was keeping the money for himself! He was a supreme dicatator. He had all the personnel and materials available in the entire country. It is foolish to think he couldn't figure out how to enrich uranium simply because his country was poor.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Oh look--the Iraqis had Uranium Enrichment plants!! What a shock!!</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Oh look! the Israelis took care of them back in the 80s!! What a shock!!
<a href='http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/oct03/wmd.asp' target='_blank'>Israel's Attack on Osirak</a></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Do any of you guys ever even read your own links?
"The destruction of the Osirak reactor greatly affected Iraq's nuclear program. Although the attack took Iraq off the fast track to nuclear weapons, Baghdad responded furiously by doubling its efforts to obtain the bomb. It assigned 20,000 people to work on the nuclear program and accelerated development of gas centrifuges to produce bomb-grade material. Iraq spent over $10 billion on prohibited components and its denial and deception methods to conceal related facilities and technologies." And that was 25 years ago! Since everyone seems to agree the strike set back Iraq's nuclear weapons program by around 10 years, is it that unreasonable to believe they might be cloes to acheiving another nuclear bomb 25 years later?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>That part is probably true. But, on the other hand, it was not required that he have a completed, functional Nuclear Weapon. If Saddam had a nuclear weapon in development, that would be ready in a few months, or in a year, we'd still want to act. Similarly, chemical and biological weapons also count as WMDs...and we didn't want Saddam to have those either. And my father fought in the invasion of Iraq, and they spent endless amounts of time and effort preparing to be hit by chemical and biological attacks that never came--I'm certain the military truly believed that Saddam had Chemical and Biological WMDs, if not Nuclear.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Of course they expected chemical and bacterial weapons. It would have been foolish not to do since Saddam used them in the Iran/Iraq conflict. But never the less, the same problem remains as with the nukes. The US claimed they knew of their actual <i>existance</i> and whereabouts. And If you <i>know</i> about them, you should be able to find them later....don't you think?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Edit--Misread your question there. Retyping answer.

So--you agree Saddam had them (since he used them in the previous war), AND you blame us for lying about their existence, in the same paragraph?

Incidentally, we <i>did</i> find some chemical weapons. Not a whole lot, so it never made headlines, but we did recover a small number of chemical weapons (mostly after they were used against us by insurgents).

So we thought Saddam had some chemical weapons--and he did--but not nearly as much as we suspected, and the storehouses we thought would contain them were emptied (whether intentionally or by looting) by the time we got there. Tell me again how this proves that we lied?

Legat · June 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Right--I've never thought the US believed Saddam had a functional bomb. I don't think they said that even in the lead up to the war. They were worried about Saddam's program to produce a bomb, but as several people have already pointed out, once he finished making one there would be no further question of an invasion. Yes, they said Saddam had WMDs--but NOT ALL WMDs ARE NUKES!! The US believed that Saddam was preparing nuclear weapons, and already had chemical and biological WMDs. No lies there.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

False- they claimed hehe HAS WMDs and they said the KNOW where they are.
This statements include the specific mentioning of nuclear weapons at least once.
I partipated in the dicussion on this board when the topic was hot the first time. I remember the arguments all too well.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Building it in your cellar required the access to already partially enriched uranium that you can find here in the US, as controls here aren't as tight as in other parts of the world. But building it in an industrial plant is relatively simple, just time consuming. And delivery? We know Iraq had medium range missiles capable of delivering it as far as Israel. And its also possible a nuclear weapon could be delivered by ground, under the same principles as a suicide truck bomb.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

You must construct a warhead that fits into the scud. That is the actual technical challenge.
And yes the possibility of an "nuclear truck" exists. You can fit it on a torpedo too. That's why nukes mean independence.
That does not alter the problem at hand. Iraq had none and were not capable of getting them. Not in the very least. There was nothing found. Nada.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Do any of you guys ever even read your own links?
"The destruction of the Osirak reactor greatly affected Iraq's nuclear program. Although the attack took Iraq off the fast track to nuclear weapons, Baghdad responded furiously by doubling its efforts to obtain the bomb. It assigned 20,000 people to work on the nuclear program and accelerated development of gas centrifuges to produce bomb-grade material. Iraq spent over $10 billion on prohibited components and its denial and deception methods to conceal related facilities and technologies."<b> And that was 25 years ago! Since everyone seems to agree the strike set back Iraq's nuclear weapons program by around 10 years, is it that unreasonable to believe they might be cloes to acheiving another nuclear bomb 25 years later?</b></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

*sigh* Yes... I read the link. I suppose you read the other one I gave you.
Are you aware that inbetween there were a war and an embargo? Do you know what an embargo means? Ask a cuban citizen.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Iraq in general was only deteriorating because Saddam was keeping the money for himself! He was a supreme dicatator. He had all the personnel and materials available in the entire country. It is foolish to think he couldn't figure out how to enrich uranium simply because his country was poor.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Saddam did waste money for his lifestyle. Can we establish that as a fact and discuss the important factors?
The embargo and the wars laid waste to the economy. Like in any Banana republic, the economy suffers as the money is needed to keep the regieme in power. Technological advancements like nuclear capabilites <i>simply are not possible</i> under circumstances like in Iraq. Everybody who took a closer look at the country could have seen this. Especially since it is under satellite surveilliance 24/7 since desert storm.
Suspecting Saddam to build nukes is like anticiapating a person with one leg to win a butt-kicking contest.
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>So--you agree Saddam had them (since he used them in the previous war), AND you blame us for lying about their existence, in the same paragraph?

Incidentally, we did find some chemical weapons. Not a whole lot, so it never made headlines, but we did recover a small number of chemical weapons (mostly after they were used against us by insurgents).

So we thought Saddam had some chemical weapons--and he did--but not nearly as much as we suspected, and the storehouses we thought would contain them were emptied (whether intentionally or by looting) by the time we got there. Tell me again how this proves that we lied?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Omg... what are we talking about? some sarin artillery shells left over from the Iran war. Buddy.... The US wanted to tell the world that Saddam would soon be able to kill
People in Europe etc... we are not talking about that stuff he used to gas curds.
Making preparations to protect the troops against those is of course a priority. But that does not warrant all that fuss about Saddams suspected WMD capabilites.

The stuff found by the troops was mustard gas by the way. That's really nasty stuff burning soft tissue and lungs. Its also used to clean pipelines and oil refining equipment by the way. What a coincidence isn't it?

Cxwf · June 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legat @ Jun 21 2005, 11:40 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
False- they claimed hehe HAS WMDs and they said the KNOW where they are.
This statements include the specific mentioning of nuclear weapons at least once.
I partipated in the dicussion on this board when the topic was hot the first time. I remember the arguments all too well. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I participated in the discussion (though not on this board) back before we invaded, when Bush was still trying to drum up support. And I can guarantee you, if Bush had been claiming that Saddam had functional nukes, <i>someone</i> would have had the bright idea to say, "what if he uses them on us when we attack?" But no one ever did.

The argument was that Saddam was close to <i>obtaining</i> nukes, not that he already had them.

Other, non nuclear WMDs? Yes, we thought he had those. And we seem to have been wrong.

Antrel · June 2005

And I think people want answers, or atleast some kind of apology.
I was, and still am, for this war (strictly for humanitarian reasons), but have expressed my extreme pessimism of its playout since only a few months into the war.
But the bottom line is that somebody didn't do their job right and now tens of thousands of people are dead.
Did Bush fix the evidence to fit his case?
If not, did he purposely use dated intelligence and listen to only those people who'd back his cause?
If not that, than did the CIA and other intel sources fix the intel to push Bush into war?
Any way you put it, somebody screwed up extremely badly. And it's not unreasonable to ask questions as to who exactly was responsible for what.

Legat · June 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I participated in the discussion (though not on this board) back before we invaded, when Bush was still trying to drum up support. And I can guarantee you, if Bush had been claiming that Saddam had functional nukes, someone would have had the bright idea to say,"what if he uses them on us when we attack?" But no one ever did.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Thats why I loughed up hysterically when I saw Mr Powell on TV anwering the question of wherabouts on Iraqs WMDs with the exact words: "We know he has them. And we know where they are."
What you are trying to do is plaing down the affair. You are trying to justify something that is not justificable. Even if it had actually been a mistake, it would display a amount of incompetence and ignorance that alone would warrant Bushs resingment. We are not talking about some small fries here! We are talking about a war and many dead people.
Whether or not they said exact numbers does not matter either. They were trying to create a threatening atmosphere. They created a fictious threat to gain support.
That did not work. Those nations that actually joined in did so because their leadership wanted to gain some points with the US.
But the majority of population the rest of the Nato Members did not believe this charade.
Your concearns about someone asking questions is not viable either, as everybody who officially stated concearns about Mr Bushs policy was framed as "anti-patriotic" and condemned by both the media and public opinion.

So, what are we discussing here? This is hiliarous. When the topic was brought up before the war, the critics, mostly so called "old europeans", stated that the claims of Saddam being a threat to the international community was uttlery rubbish.

War supporters answered with CIA reports and pentagon reports and posted quoted "respected" media networks and tried to convince the world that the weapons are there.

The were none.

Then, the critics started to question the justification again and wanted some answers.
The supporters blamed the CIA reports, the Pentagon reports and, ohhh yes, the evil media networks that jumped on the train.

The whole incident was declared a sad "mistake", but still, the world is a safer place now isn't it?....

Now, suddenly, there is a memo, that contains some indications that some fishy things were going on, things that were long before suspected by those "Anti-Patriots" and "Old Europeans" and again, the critics are asking their questions.

Now what is it this time? A simple misunderstanding?
What are we discussing? The critics were right. From the beginning. Are there consequences? No.

You should ask yourself, what kind of politicians you want, because you get only those you earn yourself. If you allow them to behave like this without having to fear consequences, you get what you deserve.

NGE · June 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Splinter Steve? @ Jun 20 2005, 04:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (NGE @ Jun 20 2005, 03:58 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Antrel @ Jun 19 2005, 10:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Very similar to Bush's opinion on Saddam's WMDs. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Bush's oppinion = based on evidence

Rycroft's oppinion = based on speculation

So by any logical sort of thinking, one can trust Bush but one cannot trust this document as anything more than historical evidence describing the feelings of the British governement at the time. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Sorry if I missed the sarcasm, but...

<a href='http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=opinion' target='_blank'>http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=opinion</a>

Consult it for both the spelling and the definition. An opinion is <b>not substantiated</b> by proof. Thus in your analogy, both opinions while "based on" different things as you say, one which we know to be definitively wrong (Bush's) without an argument, are both just speculation. So basically one speculation which is absolutely wrong makes the individual who made it more trustworthy than another guy who made a speculation which is up for debate. No matter which side you take on what Rycroft said, they're either both liars or Bush is the only one we shouldn't be trusting.

Then again the analogy was a joke, right?  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Your post is a walking contridiction then because you substantiate your oppinion with proof.

Just because it isn't substantiated with <b>positive</b> proof does not mean is not substantiated with <b>any</b> proof.

Bush's oppinion of Iraq was based on his intelligence. His intell wasn't 100% positive yet it was something. Therefore it follows his oppinion is based off of something.

Whereas; Rycroft's oppinion is most likey a combination of American bias, his experiences with the American governement, and he was listing all possible scenrio's as well.

Rycroft's oppinion therefore is less valid, substantiated, and credible than Bush's. By a longshot. Would I take Rycroft's oppinion over Bush's + American Intell?

Rycroft was simply guessing and <a href='http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=speculating' target='_blank'>speculating</a>. There is no controversy. Bush was making hypothesis; guesses based on something.

Remember, you have to keep things in historical context.

A large problem with everyone in this thread is that they are using too much hindsight, they think "OMG Rycroft WAS RIGHT OMG OMG CONSPIRACY THEY KNEW ALL ALONG"

When in reality, all this memo proves is that Rycroft made a guess, and turned out to be right. Give the man a raise, his professional oppinion turned out to be something. However the memo in no way means that the US or England "knew" that the evidence against Iraq was bad.

Case closed.

Cxwf · June 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legat @ Jun 21 2005, 01:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I participated in the discussion (though not on this board) back before we invaded, when Bush was still trying to drum up support. And I can guarantee you, if Bush had been claiming that Saddam had functional nukes, someone would have had the bright idea to say,"what if he uses them on us when we attack?" But no one ever did.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Thats why I loughed up hysterically when I saw Mr Powell on TV anwering the question of wherabouts on Iraqs WMDs with the exact words: "We know he has them. And we know where they are."
 </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Would you care to remind me which time period you are referring to here? Was this during the run up to the war? The invasion itself? The period afterwards where we were searching for WMDs?

Also, you're confusing WMDs and Nukes again. They're not the same thing.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Your concearns about someone asking questions is not viable either, as everybody who officially stated concearns about Mr Bushs policy was framed as "anti-patriotic" and condemned by both the media and public opinion.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
You misunderstand me. I was just using that as a marker, as something that would show up well in our memories.
IF Bush had said Saddam had functional nukes,
THEN someone would have complained that Saddam might use them on us,
AND we would both remember that, because it is a very memorable complaint.
BUT, we don't remember that happening,
THEREFORE, no one made the complaint,
THEREFORE, Bush couldn't have made that claim.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>What you are trying to do is plaing down the affair. You are trying to justify something that is not justificable. Even if it had actually been a mistake, it would display a amount of incompetence and ignorance that alone would warrant Bushs resingment. We are not talking about some small fries here! We are talking about a war and many dead people.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Lets look at this logically. You are first proposing that our inability to find any functional WMDs in Iraq meant that Iraq had no WMD weapons programs at all. I don't agree with that, but for the sake of argument lets assume you're right about that for now.

Next, you propose that the faulty intelligence leading Bush to believe that Iraq had a WMD program was somehow Bush's fault--despite the fact that this intelligence, faulty or not, had existed for years before Bush was elected. President Clinton believed Saddam had a WMD program too--he just wasn't willing to do much about it.

Next, you propose that, had we known Saddam's WMD programs were in such sorry condition, there would have been no basis for us to go to war. In fact, there were about half a dozen different justifications for the war, including humanitarian and legal reasons as well as terrorism and WMD threat related reasons. The WMD threat was simply the justification most often repeated in the media, because it was the simplest for the average voter to grasp.

Next, you propose that all of the people who have died during the Iraq occupation are dead solely because of Bush's decision to go to war. I must remind you that the war itself was nearly bloodless. The vast majority of deaths, on both sides, have been due to terrorist actions after the war. Now we have a situation where Syrian and Lebanese terrorists are blowing up innocent Iraqi civilians to prevent them from forming a democratic government--and yet its somehow Bush's fault.

When you look at it that way--hey, I'd call for his resignation too.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>So, what are we discussing here?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Yes, what ARE we discussing here? The existence of Iraqi WMDs is really a fairly minor point, all things considered. And the "fixing" of intelligence to show that Saddam had WMDs seems rather implausible when you consider that the Clinton Administration already believed that Saddam had WMDs, before Bush was ever elected. So what's left?

Antrel · June 2005

Ask yourself how the Lebanese and Syrian terrorists arrived into Iraq in the first place.

FACT: One of the Bush administration's main justifications for war and leading the country into accepting it was that Saddam had WMD's.
FACT: We have not found WMD's in Iraq (those warheads you were talking about had TRACES of sarin gas in them, they were not filled with it).
FACT: Somebody obviously screwed up and deserves to account for it and atleast apologize, if not for the countless of thousands of needless deaths in Iraq, then for the simple fact that we were lead into Iraq based on WMD's (false), terrorist links (false, Saddam claimed to give Palestinian bombers' families money, but held off on most, if not all cases. Other than that, he excluded himself from endorsing Islamic fundamentalism), and the smallest argument: Saddam was a dictator who murdered his people (TRUE).

Just because you might not take certain offense to the situation doesn't mean that nobody else SHOULD.

Snidely · June 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (NGE @ Jun 22 2005, 12:55 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> A large problem with everyone in this thread is that they are using too much hindsight, they think "OMG Rycroft WAS RIGHT OMG OMG CONSPIRACY THEY KNEW ALL ALONG"

When in reality, all this memo proves is that Rycroft made a guess, and turned out to be right. Give the man a raise, his professional oppinion turned out to be something. However the memo in no way means that the US or England "knew" that the evidence against Iraq was bad.

Case closed.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
It was apparent at the <a href='http://politics.guardian.co.uk/whitehall/story/0,9061,891579,00.html' target='_blank'>time</a> that they were taking liberties with the truth.

Splinter_Steve · June 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Rycroft's oppinion therefore is <b>less valid, substantiated, and credible than Bush's. By a longshot.</b> Would I take Rycroft's oppinion over Bush's + American Intell?

Rycroft was simply guessing and speculating. There is no controversy. Bush was making hypothesis; guesses based on something.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I didn't think anything could be <b>less</b> substantiated, valid, or credible if it's <b>wrong</b>. I mean how the heck COULD something WRONG be substantiated, validated, or made credible? Through lies I guess, but hey, that's what you have a lot of people saying he did.

Speculation has to be based on "something", as you put it, and that's what both Rycroft and Bush did, speculate. How is one any better than the other? I mean I'd have to believe Rycroft either before Bush or not at all. Rycroft seems to be a better speculator if he was right in what he thought, so I'd have to trust him more, even if that wasn't saying much.

I'm just refuting the supposition you made, which wasn't sound at all. Kind of came off like just a shallow rally cry for Bush.

semipsychotic · June 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Rycroft's oppinion therefore is less valid, substantiated, and credible than Bush's. By a longshot. Would I take Rycroft's oppinion over Bush's + American Intell?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Roycroft's opinion/theory is an opinion/theory about the substantiaton behind Bush's theory. <i>IF</i> Roycraft's statement (the way some interpret it: that the intelligence agencies in the United States were fudging and faking evidence of WMDs) is true, then Bush's substantiation is gone, and his theory that Iraq has/had WMDs is null. The substantiation behind Roycroft's opinion/theory is that no WMDs (beyond a few warheads, and even then, they don't really meet the definition of "mass") have actually been found, which calls into question the intelligence.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Next, you propose that, had we known Saddam's WMD programs were in such sorry condition, there would have been no basis for us to go to war. In fact, there were about half a dozen different justifications for the war, including humanitarian and legal reasons as well as terrorism and WMD threat related reasons. The WMD threat was simply the justification most often repeated in the media, because it was the simplest for the average voter to grasp.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I would look at it otherwise. The WMD and pre-emptive strike connection was probably made as a "legal" justification for the U.N. to mull over. It didn't work too well.

If you were to invade a country for primarily humanitarian reasons, then you would have a <i>long</i> checklist of other countries deserving of the same treatment. It would also seem closer to a "we don't like Saddam. We invade." type of deal, which would not look the best to other countries.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>FACT: We have not found WMD's in Iraq (those warheads you were talking about had TRACES of sarin gas in them, they were not filled with it).</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
They were warheads intended to become chemical weapons when fired properly. They contained chemicals that, when prepared and fired properly, would mix in flight and produce sarin gas. Filling a container with sarin gas makes it extremely dangerous to handle, making mixtures a more practical alternative. Yes, I know I sound evil when I talk about "practicality" when dealing with horrid things like chemical weaponry- it's a purely military and tactical aspect I'm looking at, not my personal voice.

Because we're talking about street terrorists, it's safe to say that the reason that not much sarin was produced was because it was not fired properly.

I'm still wondering where the things came from. There were only a few of them fired, if I recall.

Cxwf · June 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (semipsychotic @ Jun 22 2005, 06:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Next, you propose that, had we known Saddam's WMD programs were in such sorry condition, there would have been no basis for us to go to war. In fact, there were about half a dozen different justifications for the war, including humanitarian and legal reasons as well as terrorism and WMD threat related reasons. The WMD threat was simply the justification most often repeated in the media, because it was the simplest for the average voter to grasp.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I would look at it otherwise. The WMD and pre-emptive strike connection was probably made as a "legal" justification for the U.N. to mull over. It didn't work too well.

If you were to invade a country for primarily humanitarian reasons, then you would have a <i>long</i> checklist of other countries deserving of the same treatment. It would also seem closer to a "we don't like Saddam. We invade." type of deal, which would not look the best to other countries.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
*Grins*

Indeed, it wouldn't look too good to other countries, thus requiring us to present a "diplomatic front" when trying to gain their support. But the support of other countries isn't at issue here--its how the issue looks to the US populace that Bush represents. (Aren't I evil?)

Showing that removing Saddam is in the best interests of the US is much easier than proving that removing him is in the best interests of the world at large. In fact, some parts of the world probably <i>were</i> better off with Saddam in power. (France comes to mind...) Since I dislike the UN in general, and believe it to be thoroughly corrupt, I am quite comfortable with the concept of deception in talking to the UN, so long as it doesn't hurt the interests of the US. And if our interests happen to coincide with humanitarian interests, so much the better. =)

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (semipsychotic)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>FACT: We have not found WMD's in Iraq (those warheads you were talking about had TRACES of sarin gas in them, they were not filled with it).</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
They were warheads intended to become chemical weapons when fired properly. They contained chemicals that, when prepared and fired properly, would mix in flight and produce sarin gas. Filling a container with sarin gas makes it extremely dangerous to handle, making mixtures a more practical alternative. Yes, I know I sound evil when I talk about "practicality" when dealing with horrid things like chemical weaponry- it's a purely military and tactical aspect I'm looking at, not my personal voice.

Because we're talking about street terrorists, it's safe to say that the reason that not much sarin was produced was because it was not fired properly.

I'm still wondering where the things came from. There were only a few of them fired, if I recall.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Thanks for explaining that, semi. And I too wonder how we managed to come across just a handful of them--one would think that either Saddam would have disposed of all his Chemical weapons shells, or that he would have kept a large number of them, which we would eventually find. It is quite odd that we came across just a handful like that.

(Just for clarification--they were artillery shells, designed to be fired off in artillery guns--but instead they were being used for makeshift landmines by terrorists, which helped explain why they didn't work properly.)

Antrel · June 2005

From what I recall (correct me if I'm wrong), we found two. Both of them were described as "very old" (MAYBE even Iran-Iraq old?). We've been there for two years and we've found two shells (assuming that they weren't carried over from Syria or Jordan). Now you may say to me:

WELL ROFL DUH BUSH SAID HE COULDN'T ACCOUNT FOR ALL OF THEM AND WE FOUND TEH BOMBZ AND NOW WE'RE RIGHT U WRONG!

Saddam had a vast stockpile leftover from the Iran-Iraq war. My speculation, and the speculation of leading experts, is that he DID either destroy his munitions or transported them over the Syrian border. It is just as possible that these two shells in particular were carried over from Syria (albeit their origination from Iraq). Iraq, who's technology was decades behind ours, made claims to have gotten rid of all their WMD's and so far we've found two. Yet the USA itself discarded its own sarin bomblettes in Colorado not too long ago (fully functional). With that in mind, is it somewhat possible that Saddam's regime may have left say 5 of hundreds of thousands of munitions functional?

My point is that you're trying to justify the reports, the claims, one of (if not the) main reasons for going to war, with two shells that are both more than 15 years old? And you can't even guarantee me those haven't been transported across the border within the two years we've been there. And IF that is the case, we've just created the same problem that we claimed to have been fighting against to begin with.

"My fellow Americans, we've done it. We found the WMD's. We are now in the process of destroying BOTH munitions that Saddam 'claimed' to have destroyed. Mission accomplished."

Cxwf · June 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Antrel @ Jun 22 2005, 10:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> My point is that you're trying to justify the reports, the claims, one of (if not the) main reasons for going to war, with two shells that are both more than 15 years old? </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Incorrect. We're just pointing out the chemical weapons shells we found as a curiosity, as one more thing about this whole mess thats hard to explain. (The war remains justified even if we found no WMDs at all.)

--Where did the intelligence pointing to Saddams WMD programs come from, if he had no WMD programs? (And don't say Bush, cause the intelligence predates Bush.)
--Where did Saddams WMDs go, if he did have WMD programs?
--Why did we find just a handful of WMDs, if Saddam had lots of them?
--Why did we find just a handful of WMDs, if Saddam had none of them?
--Why didn't Saddam want to allow weapons inspections, if he had no WMD programs?

I think there's more, but I can't remember the whole list right now. Oh, and the handful of shells we found had serial numbers on them, proving they were part of Saddam's arsenal, and not from Syria. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' />

Downing Street Memo

Comments