Real Question about WMDs in Iraq

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Yes please do pull up the Hans Blix report from March, immediately before the war. Then ask yourself if someone should go to war under those circumstances.

This January
link

Resolution 687 (1991), like the subsequent resolutions I shall refer to, required cooperation by Iraq but such was often withheld or given grudgingly. Unlike South Africa, which decided on its own to eliminate its nuclear weapons and welcomed inspection as a means of creating confidence in its disarmament, 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.

The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for.

The discovery of a number of 122 mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions.

The recent inspection find in the private home of a scientist of a box of some 3,000 pages of documents, much of it relating to the laser enrichment of uranium support a concern that has long existed that documents might be distributed to the homes of private individuals. This interpretation is refuted by the Iraqi side, which claims that research staff sometimes may bring home papers from their work places. On our side, we cannot help but think that the case might not be isolated and that such placements of documents is deliberate to make discovery difficult and to seek to shield documents by placing them in private homes.

Let's not forget that we also found parts for their nuclear program buried in the yard of one scientist.

now some from March
link

What are we to make of these activities? One can hardly avoid the impression that, after a period of somewhat reluctant cooperation, there has been an acceleration of initiatives from the Iraqi side since the end of January. (we move our military into place and all of a sudden they start to play ball.)

This is welcome, but the value of these measures must be soberly judged by how many question marks they actually succeed in straightening out. This is not yet clear.

Against this background, the question is now asked whether Iraq has cooperated "immediately, unconditionally and actively" with UNMOVIC, as is required under paragraph 9 of resolution 1441 (2002). The answers can be seen from the factual descriptions that I have provided. However, if more direct answers are desired, I would say the following:

The Iraqi side has tried on occasion to attach conditions, as it did regarding helicopters and U-2 planes. It has not, however, so far persisted in these or other conditions for the exercise of any of our inspection rights. If it did, we would report it.

It is obvious that, while the numerous initiatives, which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some long-standing open disarmament issues, can be seen as "active", or even "proactive", these initiatives 3-4 months into the new resolution cannot be said to constitute "immediate" cooperation. Nor do they necessarily cover all areas of relevance. They are nevertheless welcome and UNMOVIC is responding to them in the hope of solving presently unresolved disarmament issues.

Knowing that we were on the march to invade Saddam played the same games he had played for 10 years.

 

[ProfJohn]

One more thing:

UNITED NATIONS WEAPONS INSPECTORS REPORT TO THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL ON PROGRESS IN DISARMAMENT OF IRAQ
link

A report from the UN March 7, 2003
Partial summary of the statements made by people on the council.
Notice a pattern. Even countries who were against us going to war talked about how Iraq was not cooperating in the manor they should have been.

JOSCHKA FISCHER, Vice-Chancellor and Minister for Foreign Affairs of Germany
He said that the briefings today had made clear, once more, that Iraq?s cooperation with UNMOVIC and the IAEA had not yet fully met United Nations demands. Baghdad could have taken many of the recent steps earlier and more willingly.

LUIS ERNESTO DERBEZ, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Mexico
He wished to express his distress regarding the situation in Iraq and the lack of active, immediate and effective cooperation by its regime.
and
Active cooperation was indispensable, leading to absolutely certain knowledge of the whereabouts of the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Regrettably, Iraq reacted promptly to political pressure and the threat of the use of force, and not to the continuous demands of the international community. Even more regrettably, its cooperation was still limited and in small doses.

SOLEDAD ALVEAR VALENZUELA, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Chile,
The reports contained detailed accounts of inspections carried out and enabled the Council to infer that Iraq?s attitude of collaboration, even at a late stage, was insufficient. Signs of progress in specific areas, while important, did not detract from that conclusion.

ANA PALACIO, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Spain,
14 February she had hoped to hear that Saddam Hussein had been unconditionally complying with inspections. However, she had not heard that. Nor had she heard that today. Today, the Council ran the risk of ?not seeing the forest for the trees?. The concrete progress achieved by the inspectors and the gestures made by Saddam Hussein were distracting the international community from the objective set 12 years ago, namely, the complete disarmament of Iraq. The international community had been marking time for 12 years.
and
The complete disarmament of Iraq was not a matter of more inspectors or more time, she stated. That, in the words of a French thinker, was a ?strategy of impotence?. Up to now, Iraq had given no signs that it was willing to disarm.

MARTIN BELINGA-EBOUTOU (Cameroon)
At this stage, he recognized that Iraq had not yet taken the final opportunity offered to it on 8 November 2002. Cameroon was against war, in Iraq or elsewhere. However, as a member of the Council, it was important to Cameroon to see to it that States fully implemented the Council?s decisions, on Iraq and all other issues with which the Council dealt. He was for inspections, which could allow the Council to achieve the objectives set in resolution 1441. However, the inspections could not go on indefinitely. A credible alternative to war must be sought. The Iraqi authorities must be compelled to comply unconditionally and fully.

STEFAN TAFROV (Bulgaria)
However, after three months, no breakthrough had been seen regarding anthrax and VX gas, he said, adding that partial successes would not have been possible without constant pressure by the international community. It was the threat of the use of military force, and the presence of a large number of American and British soldiers in the region, which made that pressure credible.

 

[First]

^ Jesus Christ you're sad. :laugh:

 

[vhx]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The anti-Bush people are delusional at times.

The idea that WMD was just some figment of the Neocons imagination created to start a war is pathetic.

The history is clearly laid out. Saddam and WMD goes way back to the 80s with his war against Iran. He NEVER clearly disarmed or ended his WMD programs. Instead he went through all kinds of efforts to make the rest of the world think he still had WMD. That was his method staying relevant and trying to offset the power of Iran sitting right next to him.

Plus EVERYONE in the world thought he had WMD.

Pull up the the Han Blix presentation from right before the war where he says that Saddam was still not fully cooperating.

Sorry, but he clearly did disarm his WMDs. His existing stockpiles of Yellowcake were monitored. He never tried to get more Yellowcake and we knew it, yet we used "evidence" that every intelligence service in the world (including us) was bullshit, to make the case he was. The "mobile weapons labs" were nothing. The "drones" were nothing. it was all an elaborate ruse, a "big lie" to entice Americans into vengeance. Add to that a very cleaver association of Saddam to 9/11, you get a nice mix of fearmongering.

Not everybody thought he had WMDs.

Fully cooperating? How about I accuse you of smugging drugs, strip search you, rip apart your home looking for them, dig up your yard, and still not accept the fact that you don't have any. Then, instead of just accepting it, you get pissed and start denying me access, upon which time I double my efforts and claim that your anger is nothing more than proof that you actually do have drugs. Then, instead of just accepting you don't, I raze your house, kill your family and eventually kill you.

Sounds like a great plan, eh? I'm sure glad the US has a much higher moral standard and an "innocent until proven guilty" system by which you aren't treated as a criminal until you are one.

But that doesn't work for you, does it?

Wow, John just got rolled, hardcore.

Yes, we all knew the thing was bull shit. I was for the war at the beginning until I saw the pathetic trend: Saddam is linked to Al Queda! Oh whoops nevermind. Saddam has WMD's we know it! We have evidence! Oops nevermind. Well... we liberated Iraq and are spreading democracy! That's it! Puhlease. All of these lying SOB's in Washington need to get thrown in jail.

Everyone knows the government lied to go into Iraq, but the chances of anyone actually being held accountable? None. Just presidential pardon everyone on your way out, everything is hunky dory. That and the fact Congress doesn't have any balls to do anything.

 

[wwswimming]

there were loads of weapons in Iraq in the 1980's. mostly purchased from 5 countries -
the US, Russia, England, France, and Germany.

a lot of them were used up in the war with Iran. many were destroyed in the first
Gulf War and the resulting smoke & dust was breathed by American troops in the
1991 Iraq war.

and there were probably a few WMD's left over, even after that.

 

[GTKeeper]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The anti-Bush people are delusional at times.

The idea that WMD was just some figment of the Neocons imagination created to start a war is pathetic.

The history is clearly laid out. Saddam and WMD goes way back to the 80s with his war against Iran. He NEVER clearly disarmed or ended his WMD programs. Instead he went through all kinds of efforts to make the rest of the world think he still had WMD. That was his method staying relevant and trying to offset the power of Iran sitting right next to him.

Plus EVERYONE in the world thought he had WMD.

Pull up the the Han Blix presentation from right before the war where he says that Saddam was still not fully cooperating.

Sorry, but he clearly did disarm his WMDs. His existing stockpiles of Yellowcake were monitored. He never tried to get more Yellowcake and we knew it, yet we used "evidence" that every intelligence service in the world (including us) was bullshit, to make the case he was. The "mobile weapons labs" were nothing. The "drones" were nothing. it was all an elaborate ruse, a "big lie" to entice Americans into vengeance. Add to that a very cleaver association of Saddam to 9/11, you get a nice mix of fearmongering.

Not everybody thought he had WMDs.

Fully cooperating? How about I accuse you of smugging drugs, strip search you, rip apart your home looking for them, dig up your yard, and still not accept the fact that you don't have any. Then, instead of just accepting it, you get pissed and start denying me access, upon which time I double my efforts and claim that your anger is nothing more than proof that you actually do have drugs. Then, instead of just accepting you don't, I raze your house, kill your family and eventually kill you.

Sounds like a great plan, eh? I'm sure glad the US has a much higher moral standard and an "innocent until proven guilty" system by which you aren't treated as a criminal until you are one.

But that doesn't work for you, does it?

PJ owned again. This reply is great.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

now some from March
link

What are we to make of these activities? One can hardly avoid the impression that, after a period of somewhat reluctant cooperation, there has been an acceleration of initiatives from the Iraqi side since the end of January. (we move our military into place and all of a sudden they start to play ball.)

This is welcome, but the value of these measures must be soberly judged by how many question marks they actually succeed in straightening out. This is not yet clear.

Against this background, the question is now asked whether Iraq has cooperated "immediately, unconditionally and actively" with UNMOVIC, as is required under paragraph 9 of resolution 1441 (2002). The answers can be seen from the factual descriptions that I have provided. However, if more direct answers are desired, I would say the following:

The Iraqi side has tried on occasion to attach conditions, as it did regarding helicopters and U-2 planes. It has not, however, so far persisted in these or other conditions for the exercise of any of our inspection rights. If it did, we would report it.

It is obvious that, while the numerous initiatives, which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some long-standing open disarmament issues, can be seen as "active", or even "proactive", these initiatives 3-4 months into the new resolution cannot be said to constitute "immediate" cooperation. Nor do they necessarily cover all areas of relevance. They are nevertheless welcome and UNMOVIC is responding to them in the hope of solving presently unresolved disarmament issues.

Knowing that we were on the march to invade Saddam played the same games he had played for 10 years.

You want to bomb, invade, and occupy a country after reading a report like the one from March? You're insane.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Plus EVERYONE in the world thought he had WMD.

You must have forgotten top U.S. weapon-inspector David Kay's testimony to Congress, where he begins by saying:

"Let me begin by saying, we were almost all wrong, and I certainly include myself here."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/28/kay.transcript/

D'oh! Good thing no other country started a war when they were so clueless. Or as your mom used to say, "If everyone else jumps off a cliff, will you do that too?"

:laugh:

 

[ProfJohn]

Deal, you kind of confirmed what those of us on the right have been saying all along.

The right thought he had WMD, but we were wrong.

The left though likes to pretend that we KNEW there no WMD to being with.

There is HUGE difference between the two positions.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Sorry, but he clearly did disarm his WMDs. His existing stockpiles of Yellowcake were monitored. He never tried to get more Yellowcake and we knew it, yet we used "evidence" that every intelligence service in the world (including us) was bullshit, to make the case he was. The "mobile weapons labs" were nothing. The "drones" were nothing. it was all an elaborate ruse, a "big lie" to entice Americans into vengeance. Add to that a very cleaver association of Saddam to 9/11, you get a nice mix of fearmongering.

Not everybody thought he had WMDs.

Fully cooperating? How about I accuse you of smugging drugs, strip search you, rip apart your home looking for them, dig up your yard, and still not accept the fact that you don't have any. Then, instead of just accepting it, you get pissed and start denying me access, upon which time I double my efforts and claim that your anger is nothing more than proof that you actually do have drugs. Then, instead of just accepting you don't, I raze your house, kill your family and eventually kill you.

All people who got excited about you 'pwning me' must not have read the UN post I made.

Click on the link to the UN security council meeting from March 2003 and read it.
If you do you will learn:

1. Even countries who were opposed to the war said that Saddam had not complied with the inspectors the way he should have been.

2. NO ONE, not even France, China, Russia or Syria, came out and made the blanket statement that Saddam had disarmed.

If he had 'clearly disarmed' as you say then why days before the war did NO ONE speak up and say that?

And your drug anology is totally wrong.
The police show up to my house because they think I am hiding drugs. I say "sure go a head and search, I have nothing to hide." And then tell them they can't go into the bedroom because my wife is sleeping. Or they can't open my shed because my brother has the key and will be gone for a few days.

Saddam did this shit for 12!!! years.
Also read this article from the British Observer and note this part
"Shortly before the war last year, Saddam gathered his top generals together to share what came to them as astonishing news: the weapons that the US was launching a war to remove did not exist."

His OWN military thought they had WMD.

The whole thing is one big giant mess. It will take another 10 years before we can have a really good understanding of what went on.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Deal, you kind of confirmed what those of us on the right have been saying all along.

The right thought he had WMD, but we were wrong.

The left though likes to pretend that we KNEW there no WMD to being with.

There is HUGE difference between the two positions.

Or you could say that the right thought we had cause enough to invade and the left didn't. Guess who ended up being 'right'?

 

[ProfJohn]

ummm that is a question no one can answer at this point.

The left can say the war cost to much and took too many lives, but they really can't say it wasn't worth it at this point. It will take time before we can make that judgement.

Look at the Korean War. 35,000 dead in 3 years, but I don't think anyone would look at it now and say it wasn't worth it.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
ummm that is a question no one can answer at this point.

The left can say the war cost to much and took too many lives, but they really can't say it wasn't worth it at this point. It will take time before we can make that judgement.

Look at the Korean War. 35,000 dead in 3 years, but I don't think anyone would look at it now and say it wasn't worth it.

Fair enough, but that doesn't seem to stop "the right" from saying that the war IS worth it. You can't have it both ways.