Did Saddam bluff the US and allies into attacking?

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Interesting. So, you're saying if true, Saddam never had any WMDs to speak of? Therefore, at least one of our primary reasons for going to war was false? The theory certainly fits the post-war reality of what we're seeing now that we actually occupy Iraq...

IF he did, WHERE did WMD go?

IYO, do you think Saddam destroyed them or SOLD them to terrorist organizations?

We destroyed them in the 1998 raids.

From the article...

According to the aide, by the mid-1990s "it was common knowledge among the leadership" that Iraq had destroyed its chemical stocks and discontinued development of biological and nuclear weapons.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Interesting. So, you're saying if true, Saddam never had any WMDs to speak of? Therefore, at least one of our primary reasons for going to war was false? The theory certainly fits the post-war reality of what we're seeing now that we actually occupy Iraq...

IF he did, WHERE did WMD go?

IYO, do you think Saddam destroyed them or SOLD them to terrorist organizations?

We destroyed them in the 1998 raids.

How can you be so sure?

Saddam was/is evidently sitting on a pile of cash at the beginning of this war . . .

i guess we'll find out if he (had them and) sold them to terrorists . . .

:Q

All evidence points to this. Iraq said they were gone. The various Iraqi defectors and exiles, before and after the was, unanimously claimed they were gone, and UN inspector Scott Ritter said at least 95% were gone, likely more.

In spite of the constant war drums from the White House, there was no evidence Iraq still had WMD's. None. It was an unsupported claim they used to scare Americans into accepting the invasion.

 

[UltraQuiet]

All evidence points to this. Iraq said they were gone. The various Iraqi defectors and exiles, before and after the was, unanimously claimed they were gone, and UN inspector Scott Ritter said at least 95% were gone, likely more.

All evidence does not point to this. Clinton said when he left the white house the evidence was that saddam still had wmd. Ritter said in '98 that he thought 95% of the WMD had been destroyed but that the programs could quickly be reconstituted and would be without inspectors. Every intelligence agency in the world's capabilities estimate said that Iraq had weapons or most probably had weapons and was at the very least pursuing a nuke capability. We knew Saddam had WMD and he could not or would not account for all of it. He also did not cooperate with inspectors, interviews or overflights. The prudent and conservative estimate would have to assume he had WMD. There was nothing "unsupported" about the White House claims.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

All evidence points to this. Iraq said they were gone. The various Iraqi defectors and exiles, before and after the was, unanimously claimed they were gone, and UN inspector Scott Ritter said at least 95% were gone, likely more.

All evidence does not point to this. Clinton said when he left the white house the evidence was that saddam still had wmd. Ritter said in '98 that he thought 95% of the WMD had been destroyed but that the programs could quickly be reconstituted and would be without inspectors. Every intelligence agency in the world's capabilities estimate said that Iraq had weapons or most probably had weapons and was at the very least pursuing a nuke capability. We knew Saddam had WMD and he could not or would not account for all of it. He also did not cooperate with inspectors, interviews or overflights. The prudent and conservative estimate would have to assume he had WMD. There was nothing "unsupported" about the White House claims.

None of this is evidence Iraq still had WMDs or significant amounts of chemical or biological agents. It is all speculation, guesstimation, idle conjecture, innuendo, jumping to conclusions, or even wishful thinking. You don't invade another country on speculation. All of the evidence suggested the weapons were probably gone.

We had an inspections process in place to determine if there was any substance to the speculation, but Bush-lite preempted it by invading. A more cynical person might even speculate that Bush rushed to invade once the inspections began to discredit this speculation. That would only be speculation, however, not evidence.

 

[UltraQuiet]

None of this is evidence Iraq still had WMDs or significant amounts of chemical or biological agents. It is all speculation, guesstimation, idle conjecture, innuendo, jumping to conclusions, or even wishful thinking. You don't invade another country on speculation. All of the evidence suggested the weapons were probably gone.

It was all evidence that he had WMD. That's why every intellignece agency in the world said he did. If there was so much evidence that he didn't why did they all say that? Why was there a need for inspectors? Why didn't we just lift sanctions and no-fly zones? Why didn't he cooperate fully The only evidence that there wasn't any was a tiny amount of inspections that were done that Saddam didn't cooperate with and resisted to the end. There is no possible way that that could be even remotely construed as him not having WMD. It was just more of his BS.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Czar
I would say rather likely since that would be the only way for Saddam to do any damage to the US

Do you really think the only threat that Saddam posed to the US and the world was his WMD?

His only serious threat! If it had been known for sure that he didn't possess any WMD's I seriously doubt the majority of the American Public would have supported the invasion of Iraq.

Czar,
What do you think were the other threats posed by Saddam?

Red,
I think you are taking way too narrow a view.
Take into account the poverty and economic stagnation that was caused in the Middle East by have Iraq under sanctions. Add in what the effect would be if the sanctions were lifted and Saddam and his brutal methods were hailed as the new leader of a greater Arab nationalist moverment.

That's just the tip.

Yes, his WMD could kill many people, destroy the world economy and thus kill many more people but the political, economic and social reasons were just as dangerous and important in his removal in my opinion.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

None of this is evidence Iraq still had WMDs or significant amounts of chemical or biological agents. It is all speculation, guesstimation, idle conjecture, innuendo, jumping to conclusions, or even wishful thinking. You don't invade another country on speculation. All of the evidence suggested the weapons were probably gone.

It was all evidence that he had WMD.

With all due respect, no it is NOT evidence. It is speculation, assumption, innuendo. They are not the same.

Evidence would be eye witness reports (even second-hand), purchase records, physical evidence, that sort of thing. We did NOT have any of that. The little evidence we did have -- Iraq's own declarations, statements by exiles and defectors, and UN inspections reports -- unanimously indicated Iraq was substantially in compliance. Did that prove Iraq was in compliance? No. That's why the inspectors were still there, to gather more evidence one way or another.

That's why every intellignece agency in the world said he did. If there was so much evidence that he didn't why did they all say that? Why was there a need for inspectors?

You keep saying that. I call BS. I won't even echo your frequent, empty demands for proof. Just show me your evidence that "every intelligence agency in the world said" Iraq still had WMDs. If you can't, then stop repeating it.

Aside from its obvious factual inaccuracy -- "every" is a nonsense word in a claim like that -- I doubt you can show that "most" intel agencies said this. I even posted reports that the British acknowledged their assessment of Iraq's WMD capabilites were "speculation" since they had no current evidence.

There's the challenge. Do you have any links that back up your claim, or is it empty rhetoric?

Why didn't we just lift sanctions and no-fly zones? Why didn't he cooperate fully

We don't know why Iraq didn't cooperate more fully with inspectors. We can only speculate. The subject of this article is one possible explanation. Another is that the Iraqi government wasn't thrilled to have its enemy poking around in all its military facilities. We wouldn't, if the tables were turned.

The only evidence that there wasn't any was a tiny amount of inspections that were done that Saddam didn't cooperate with and resisted to the end. There is no possible way that that could be even remotely construed as him not having WMD. It was just more of his BS.

In your opinion, perhaps. The point is that this was the only evidence we had. The inspections were in place to determine the truth.

In my opinion, Bush didn't want the truth. He wanted Iraqi oil. He wanted a distraction from his many domestic failures and looming scandals. He wanted to avenge his daddy. He rushed to attack Iraq before the UN inspectors produced even more evidence that Iraq was substantially complying with UN restrictions.

(By the way, Blix said Iraq was cooperating acceptably, if not perfectly. That is another distortion repeated here frequently.)

 

[Moonbeam]

One thing you see if you are at all awake is that people make excuses for themselves. We got in trouble as children and don't want that ever to happen again. We were told we were bad and so we had to pretend otherwise. So now we are all good. But being punished didn't kill our motivation, it just drove it underground. We learned to be sneaky and to rationalize. Mostly we learned to fool ourselves because we were the ones who could really see. So instead of growing up loving truth, we grew up hating it because our truth was that we were bad.

Jump 50 plus years and you're President. You see this country that makes you mad. You want their oil and you fear what they man do. You know your bad, but you want what you want. It's the same story all over again. What's changed is that you have great minds to justify your acts. You don't have to do all the thinking yourself. So you reach into the cookie jar and bam. Some asshole reminds you those aren't your cookies. But, but I just told you why. Well somebody discovers your lie. Oh man, don't you hate that. You change your story. Maybe nobody will notice. Well it wasn't about WMD, it was about programs, or freeing the Iraqi people. You just can't say you're bad. And lie after lie fall as they inevitably do. Oh what a tangled web....., and all that stuff.

So you go back to your great minds and say, you gotta get me out of this mess. I'm going down in the polls. Shoot his kids, talk about economic recovery, get me out of this mess. Get the UN to take over Iraq. Get this tar Baby off my ass. So the smart people sit down and do an analysis:

OK so we said there were weapons and there weren't. Ah, yes, it was all a big trap. He was just pretending and of course we had to raid his jar. See it was his fault. IT'S GOT TO BE HIS FAULT!!!! IT CAN NEVER EVER BE MINE!!!! I'M A GOOD BOY!!!! I BELIEVE IN GOD!!!!

 

[UltraQuiet]

You keep saying that. I call BS. I won't even echo your frequent, empty demands for proof. Just show me your evidence that "every intelligence agency in the world said" Iraq still had WMDs. If you can't, then stop repeating it.

Aside from its obvious factual inaccuracy -- "every" is a nonsense word in a claim like that -- I doubt you can show that "most" intel agencies said this. I even posted reports that the British acknowledged their assessment of Iraq's WMD capabilites were "speculation" since they had no current evidence.

There's the challenge. Do you have any links that back up your claim, or is it empty rhetoric?

The proof is that no member of the UN Security Council came out and said "Our intel. suggests that Saddam does not have WMD." Quite the contrary in fact. None of them came out and said "we have evidence that disproves Sec. Powell's speech". Neither did any other country in the world. Please correct me if I'm wrong but I can only conclude that if they didn't dispute it they agreed with it or didn't have evidence to the contrary. The fact is that they all said that they largely agreed with the US assesment, the major dispute was what to do about it.

The following is nothing but empty rhetoric:

In my opinion, Bush didn't want the truth. He wanted Iraqi oil. He wanted a distraction from his many domestic failures and looming scandals. He wanted to avenge his daddy. He rushed to attack Iraq before the UN inspectors produced even more evidence that Iraq was substantially complying with UN restrictions.

I'd be curious what you base that opinion on. Pure and unadulterated hatred?

 

[SuperTool]

So there is no WMD in Iraq? This war was for nothing?

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
So there is no WMD in Iraq? This war was for nothing?

This war did alot of good. It removed a tyrannical regime. It gave us alot of oil and crippled the Saudi's power due to their oil. It made alot of rich companies richer.

But this doesn't change the fact that it was the most illegal and unprecedented war America has ever waged. It went against centuries of American foreign policy that have worked quite well. It was fought on the basis of outright falsehoods. How exactly the American people were duped into supporting it will be studied for decades and maybe centuries to come.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
So there is no WMD in Iraq? This war was for nothing?

Lets assume for the time being that there are WMD in Iraq. OK! What and where is the proof that SH was about to use these WMD against the US. This is the element needed to sustain a defense agrument before the World Court and the UN. IMO.

 

[DealMonkey]

I would venture to say that the only evidence, the only proof, that Saddam and thus Iraq had WMDs is to actually find the WMDs. Anything less is simply "word on the street" or our intel community's best guess. Everyone seems to assume that Saddam has WMDs because he had them in the past, however the burden of proof is solidly on the shoulders of the pro-war populace and the administration who beat the whole world over the head in order to invade Iraq. Let me know when you actually find something substantial.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: SuperTool
So there is no WMD in Iraq? This war was for nothing?

Lets assume for the time being that there are WMD in Iraq. OK! What and where is the proof that SH was about to use these WMD against the US. This is the element needed to sustain a defense agrument before the World Court and the UN. IMO.

Your opinion ignores all of the UN resolutions that demanded that he document what he had and turn it over to the UN.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I would venture to say that the only evidence, the only proof, that Saddam and thus Iraq had WMDs is to actually find the WMDs. Anything less is simply "word on the street" or our intel community's best guess. Everyone seems to assume that Saddam has WMDs because he had them in the past, however the burden of proof is solidly on the shoulders of the pro-war populace and the administration who beat the whole world over the head in order to invade Iraq. Let me know when you actually find something substantial.

The "burden of proof" was on Saddam. Try not to forget that again.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I would venture to say that the only evidence, the only proof, that Saddam and thus Iraq had WMDs is to actually find the WMDs. Anything less is simply "word on the street" or our intel community's best guess. Everyone seems to assume that Saddam has WMDs because he had them in the past, however the burden of proof is solidly on the shoulders of the pro-war populace and the administration who beat the whole world over the head in order to invade Iraq. Let me know when you actually find something substantial.

The "burden of proof" was on Saddam. Try not to forget that again.

Okay, let me rephrase that, in the court of public opinion the burden of proof is on the Bush Administration to show the entire world what a danger Saddam was. Otherwise, we'll look like a bunch of trigger-happy yahoos going in there all half-cocked.

So, etech, tell me. Did you post this "theory" just to troll for those who might actually point to it and say, "...hey, maybe that explains why there's no WMDs in Iraq?" It sure seems that way.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I would venture to say that the only evidence, the only proof, that Saddam and thus Iraq had WMDs is to actually find the WMDs. Anything less is simply "word on the street" or our intel community's best guess. Everyone seems to assume that Saddam has WMDs because he had them in the past, however the burden of proof is solidly on the shoulders of the pro-war populace and the administration who beat the whole world over the head in order to invade Iraq. Let me know when you actually find something substantial.

The "burden of proof" was on Saddam. Try not to forget that again.

So what? A moral country does not invade another due to bad paperwork. Our standards must be much higher than that.

Further, it was a U.N. resolution. Bush intentionally avoided asking for U.N. approval for his invasion because he knew the U.N. wouldn't approve it. That completely discredits any claim that we invaded because of the U.N. resolution.

Edit: Oh, and we've argued 'round and 'round about this in dozens of other threads.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I would venture to say that the only evidence, the only proof, that Saddam and thus Iraq had WMDs is to actually find the WMDs. Anything less is simply "word on the street" or our intel community's best guess. Everyone seems to assume that Saddam has WMDs because he had them in the past, however the burden of proof is solidly on the shoulders of the pro-war populace and the administration who beat the whole world over the head in order to invade Iraq. Let me know when you actually find something substantial.

The "burden of proof" was on Saddam. Try not to forget that again.

The "burden of proof" for lifting the sanctions was on Saddam. The burden of proof for starting the war was on Bush.
You gonna tell the families of the dead soldiers they died because Saddam couldn't prove he destroyed WMD's?
Smoking gun will be a mushroom cloud? Stop reading science fiction.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
is this the 'progress' RDWYTruckDriver was talking about?
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=52&threadid=1106581

No you idiot, it is another theory however.

*cough* Personal Attack Rule *cough*

*cough* He's frustrated at a confused idiot *cough*

You'll have to excuse me, but I thought even people as dense as you guys could detect sarcasm. I guess I gave you too much credit.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: SuperTool
So there is no WMD in Iraq? This war was for nothing?

Lets assume for the time being that there are WMD in Iraq. OK! What and where is the proof that SH was about to use these WMD against the US. This is the element needed to sustain a defense agrument before the World Court and the UN. IMO.

Your opinion ignores all of the UN resolutions that demanded that he document what he had and turn it over to the UN.

I don't intend it to. I see no correlation between documentation or absence thereof and the "intent" argument regarding the use of the alleged WMD. It is in the "intent" argument the proponents can find the absence of proof argued as proof of mal intent on the part of the US whereas the absence of WMD can be argued but not very effectively given the counter argument is... they may be buried anywhere.

 

[Moonbeam]

Now don't forget, it's the other guy that's bad.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Now don't forget, it's the other guy that's bad.

Why this isn't self evident I'll never know.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Now don't forget, it's the other guy that's bad.

Why this isn't self evident I'll never know.

The ego is very proud. It has to be, it's built on shame and pain. It seeks to get even.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
The proof is that no member of the UN Security Council came out and said "Our intel. suggests that Saddam does not have WMD." Quite the contrary in fact. None of them came out and said "we have evidence that disproves Sec. Powell's speech". Neither did any other country in the world. Please correct me if I'm wrong but I can only conclude that if they didn't dispute it they agreed with it or didn't have evidence to the contrary. The fact is that they all said that they largely agreed with the US assesment, the major dispute was what to do about it.

OK, consider yourself corrected. First, I don't accept your premise that no country said anything contrary. I don't have ready access to a complete chronicle of what every country said, and I suspect you don't either. We don't know what each country did or did not say. At best, we have a few snippets that were reported in the press.

Nonetheless, even if that premise is true, your conclusion is a logical fallacy. No country has come forward to claim that GWBush is NOT a space alien. By your logic, that proves that he is an alien. It doesn't work that way. If your premise is true at all, it only proves they didn't speak up, NOT that they agreed. There are countless reasons a country might choose to keep such beliefs quiet, not the least of which is retribution from the United States. If you'll remember, the U.S. wasn't very nice to countries that didn't support our drive to invade Iraq.

In other words, if you want to claim "every intelligence agency in the world said" Iraq still had WMDs, you need to provide evidence they actually said it. Even if you want to claim no one disagreed, you need to back that up with facts. At best, you can say that, as far as you know, no intelligence agency publicly disputed that Iraq still had WMDs. I think that even this is a stretch -- as I mentioned, the Brits acknowledged that their intel was "speculation -- but at least you've qualified the remark to reflect your personal knowledge.

The following is nothing but empty rhetoric:

And I clearly labeled it, "in my opinion."

In my opinion, Bush didn't want the truth. He wanted Iraqi oil. He wanted a distraction from his many domestic failures and looming scandals. He wanted to avenge his daddy. He rushed to attack Iraq before the UN inspectors produced even more evidence that Iraq was substantially complying with UN restrictions.

I'd be curious what you base that opinion on. Pure and unadulterated hatred?

Again, with all due respect, you guys can take your continual garbage about "hatred" and stick it. Hatred implies a desire to cause physical harm, even death. I don't want to harm the man. I just want him and his vile administration out of office, ideally to join the swelling ranks of the unemployed they helped create.

It's true that I don't respect him. It's true that I don't like him. It's true that I think he is completely unqualified for the most powerful position in the world, and that he achieved the position through his father's connections in spite of a life filled with failures at everything he did.

I don't like his arrogance, his belligerence, his simple-minded, absolutist view of the world, and the way he helps the wealthy gorge themselves at the public trough. I disagree with his policies on the economy, the environment, civil liberties, government secrecy, foreign relations, and pretty much everything else. I am revolted by the way he viciously and dishonestly attacks his opponents. I am revolted by the way he uses religion as a prop to excuse his un-Christian behavior. And, most of all, I am furious that he led this country into a unilateral invasion that killed thousands of innocent people and cost us $100 billion+ based on a bunch of bald-faced lies.

But I do NOT hate the man, I don't even know him. I have even expressed support for Bush at times, at least three times here that I can recall. Dislike, distrust, disapprove - yes. But not hate.

 

[DealMonkey]

I'd have to agree, the "hatred" card is seriously overplayed here. Being critical of someone does not imply hatred. It's a cop-out to suggest otherwise.