Is this directed at me, or nighttimer?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Are you trying to tell me you don't understand the meaning of hindsight?


Yes. This would have been an excellent idea and it would have maintained the status quo admirably.

No weapons would have been found, the sanctions would have been lifted, Saddam Hussein, still in power, would have been free to continue his dictatorship and perhaps even start up his weapons programmes again.

And at some future point he might very well have authorized and equipped a terrorist attack on... for example, Ramstein AFB in Germany.

And all those terrorists you say we have 'created'... Who are these people to whom you refer by the way? ...do you think these, alleged people (I'm assuming you are refering to human beings, with the power of free will, rather than golems or zombies, unable to think for themselves and slaves to the consequences of US foreign policy) would have remained passive onlookers regardless of the US led intervention into Iraq?

Do you suppose Iraq is the sole cause of hatred for the USA? That the policies of GW Bush are why Osama Bin Laden is so popular he has managed to evade capture for so long?


Excuse me CJ, but where did I say we were safer?

Hmmm....?




Is that a loaded question CJ or are you just happy to see me?

Of course I don't think that.

But I'm not so convinced that the whole world revolves around the actions of the USA either... and certainly not this one president or this latest war.

There is a far bigger picture here and it has far more to do with Islamic ideology than US foreign policy does.


Isn't logical? How exactly is it illogical to point out that a lack of WMD's is not evidence of anything?

No... Its posts like this one that have changed my mind CJ.

In the beginning of the conflict I was in favour of military intervention and I have said so many times here at I believed Tony Blair and later I regretted it because, like you and so many others here, I saw the lack of WMD's and made an assumption.

With the passage of time however came new understanding... hence the word 'hindsight' ...and a different point of view. Up until the recent cartoon debate you see, I had only bothered to question one side of things... the western governments.

The reason for this was simple. In my understanding, we as democratic nations have an obligation towards the international laws and institutions which were set up to defend us all. In the light of this understanding I read hundreds, if not thousands of articles which detailed the excesses and atrocities carried out by the USA and its allies.
Angered by these examples I often made long and hard posts here at and I assumed I was in the right, because I was defending those I saw as the weak. The innocent. Civilians. Children.

Now suddenly though, it was my country being attacked and those institutions did nothing to defend us. They even blamed us for what has happened!

I'm fortunate that I'm not an African for now I understand how it is possible to slaughter a million people and no one bats an eye lid. Not even the glorious UN.

I'm reading just as many articles as before, but now I have a different perspective as well as the old one. Now I question both sides and what I find is that the atrocities (like Abu Graib and Guantanamo bay) whilst real enough, do not amount to an 'evil empire'.

That a great many people are not motivated in their opposition to the war in Iraq by facts but simply because they hate the idea of war and they look at GW Bush as a warmonger.

Is he a warmonger? Yes he is. So was Josef Stalin and Winston Churchill and where would I be without them? I don't know because I would not even have been born.

So, what is the deal with GW Bush and the WMD's? Bush went to war and the foundation for his attack proved invisible. Does that mean it never existed?

Bush abused the UN to get what he wanted. Hans Blix was never allowed to finish his inspections and Saddam Hussein is no longer the dictator of Iraq.

Bush sent the troops in and now tens of thousands of people have died in Iraq.

There have been elections though... almost every blog I've read out of Iraq lately has been ambiguous about the US presence but nearly all were overjoyed by the elections. How am I supposed to put the bad over the good?

How am I supposed to accept the authority of the UN when its leadership attacks my country over a set of drawings? When undemocratic nations like Egypt and Saudi Arabia and Kuwait can use the United Nations to accuse and condem Denmark over a set of caricature drawings whilst Kofi Annan stands by like some marionet and nods? Are we the 'evil empire' now as well? Are we wicked and cruel to the poor defenceless Muslims?

No.

The UN has failed us. It is flawed, undemocratic. It gives power to tyrants and war mongers to attack innocent people in democracies. Its institutions are worthless because they are only the sum of their national companent parts.

All of the above is my personal perspective. Bitter at our betrayal I am may, but that does not make my original point any the less valid.

We don't know if there were any WMD's and far too many, otherwise intelligent people, have ignored alternative possibilities and based their arguments on assumptions.

I'm not excusing what GW Bush has done. If has violated any laws, then by all means prosecute him. For my part though, I forgive him.

And I do so because the last time an evil ideology was allowed to flourish by a politician heralding 'peace in our time', my country got invaded.

Is that a real question or are you trying to be inflammatory? If you believe that you've learned something in hindsight that implies in this case that your objectives and principles have been served, just maybe not in a way you would have liked. Based on your previous posts since, well as long as I've known you, those principles have had to do with reducing the threat of terrorism.

So unless you believe that removing Saddam Hussein and all of the subsequent events that have happened since have actually reduced the threat of terrorism and made the world safer then I'm not exactly sure what you believe you've learned with the benefit of hindsight so perhaps you should clarify.


And at some point in the future I might be a multi-billionaire and buy an island in the south pacific. Both scenarios are equally fantastic Moif.

There is absolutely no proof that Saddam had any weapons or that he intended to use them or sell them to terrorists. In fact there is a mountain of evidence suggesting that he didn't and that sanctions were working. In fact our administration was making statements to that effect in the 2000/2001 time frame - would you like me to go grab the quotes for you?

I was not aware of anyone considering lifting sanctions at any time, in fact this whole thing was marched into as sort of a prelude to war, just seeking justification.


I'd say that these terrorists were created by the war Moif. They were created by unbalancing political power, they were created by the tens of thousands of dead civilians at the hands of US bombs and weapons and they were created by hundreds if not thousands of people being carted off from their homes in the middle of the night to be stashed in detention centers. They were also created by the close to 70% unemployment rate and the lack of critical infrastructure after the war, infrastructure we helped to destroy.

Those are the perfect conditions for extremist muslim groups to recruit volunteers to their cause. And I can tell you that if I were living in a similar situation and US troops gunned down my wife or child I'd be picking up a weapon to use it against them. I would not be saying "thank you sir for freeing me, don't trouble yourself over my wife and child I know they were only 'collateral damage'."

The terrrorists were created by the deaths of the innocents you claimed to care about so many months ago. Have you thought of that? Have you thought what you might do if an occupying force killed your family?


I'm sure that the world doesn't revolve around the US but I really don't understand your "bigger picture" remarks here which you claim is part of your hindsight unless you are just happy we are picking a fight with muslims these days...

The amount of terrorism on a global scale has increased dramatically since we went into Iraq, none of those incidents have happened on US soil. The conflict in Iraq has created some of the conditions you claim to speak out against such as the cartoon fiasco.


So Iraq, which had nothing to do with terrorism, is now justified because a cartoonist in your country insulted muslims and some extremists protested and some members of the international community scolded you for it? That makes absolutely no sense.


I don't see how that is relevant. Is there now proof that Iraq had WMD Moif? If so then supply it. If not then I fail to see what UN Reports from several years ago have to do with them criticizing your country.

======

I really, really don't want to paint you as some sort of racist or xenophobe because that is not what I know you to be from your posts here but you do I hope realize that is how you've come off recently and especially in this response.

It seems to me (and please clarify if this is wrong) that you have somehow justified the attack on Iraq even despite the complete lack of evidence because you are dissatisfied with the UN and because your own country has been embroiled in the terrorism problem. That simply is not logical Moif, especially when the act of invading Iraq and destabilizing the region has likely lead to the problems you are complaining about.

If this analysis is completely off then feel free to clarify your position but it seems to me you have completely compromised your principles.

Two points to clarify here, Moif:

1. It was presumptous of me to say you had no personal stake in the Iraq War. I'm sure you are concerned with your British friend as much as I with the American soldier I know that was killed over there. I regret any anger that remark may have caused.

It's not that an American life lost in Iraq is worth more or less than anyone else. But when Denmark loses over 2,000 soldiers in Iraq you be sure to let me know, okay?

And no, the "You're Not an American Card" is not similar to the "You're Not Black" card. But the fact remains that you aren't American and you aren't Black, so your insights as to what Americans or Blacks should think, say or do makes about as much sense as me trying to gauge the pulse of a White Danish Male.

Which, no matter how hard I try I'm still going to operating at a cultural disadvantage. The same applies to you, capeesh?

And the second point?

I.
Don't.
Make.
Ignorant.
Assumptions.

Attack my positions all you like. Don't attack me personally.

Well, sometimes it seems to me that no matter how clearly I express myself, I am still misunderstood and the apparent reason behind this is not because I am poor at English but rather because people try to read between the lines, or ascribe to me thoughts and opinions which are not my own. All I wrote was that there is no evidence surrounding Iraqi WMD's so its dishonest to claim their absence is proof of anything and from that nighttimer extrapolated a pro GW Bush position which I was not making.

When I express myself as clearly as I can, and you respond by asking how I got from one set of older statements to "with hindsight that I don't see what other option's were available" within the space of a year, then you have lost me.

Isn't it obvious how I reached my current perspective when I say it was with hindsight? I looked back on what has happened with the understanding of the world I have now and see things in a very different light. How hard is that to understand?

And what are my principles CJ? Do you know me better than I know myself? I don't recall ever putting reducing the threat of terrorism ahead of protecting myself and my nation.


I've learned that tyranny is very real and tyrants are all the same whether they are terrorists, dictators, mullahs, MP's or journalists. That oppression lurks in unlikely places and those whom you count as solid friends may very well betray you if they see a gain in it.


Yes. Perhaps. Its both diabolical and elegant in its self justification.


Yeah?

Which terrorists CJ? I asked you this in my last post but you haven''t answered me. Who are these 'new terrorists' you say have come onto the battlefield?


Really CJ? Is that what really created them?

We also have Islamicists telling us now that Denmark is going to be attacked because of 12 drawings... and 80% of Danes now expect a terrorist attack in Denmark within the next year.
48% of Danes are even convinced we are on the brink of a religious war.
If this isn't terror, then what is?

And what does this tell you?

That a set of cartoon drawings are as good an excuse to hate the west as a phony war regarding WMD's...?

I no longer accept the argument that the war provoked people into becoming terrorists and the reason why not is because I keep seeing and reading about Iraqi's, in Iraq, who say the opposite.

They want the US out, yes, but the vast majority do not hate the American coalition. They have their own fish to fry and in their justifications GW Bush and the WMD's occupy a very small space. It was this that really changed my mind about the war in Iraq, not the cartoons, not the debates here and not the mountain of western media articles I read about it all. Why should I ignore the voices I was reading and seeing?

You say new terrorists have been 'created' but where are they?


Yes I have.

I've also considered that this hypothetical example is nothing besides the very real possibility of a very real terrorist attack against Århus, where Jyllandsposten is based and where my family and I live.

What does that have to do with WMD's?

Nothing. I am merely explaining my reasoning.

Everything. If the attack on Iraq had not taken place then could you guarantee that Iraqi chemical weapons would not be used against Danes? I don't think so and frankly, why should I take the risk? Would you?


Ahhhhhh... it was this sort of thing to which I alluded in my first paragraph ...because people try to read between the lines, or ascribe to me thoughts and opinions which are not my own.

You see, I don't believe we are 'picking a fight' with the Muslims. I believe they have picked a fight with us and we are defeding ourselves against a very intelligent and very dangerous enemy.


I saw this point raised in Denmark during a TV debate (we have lots of those. One of our channels seems to be nothing but political debates) in reply to just that same point an expert on global terrorism pointed out that the rise in terrorism began prior to the war in Iraq. In fact it began right back in the mid 1990's, during the Bosnian massacres.

This statement was backed up by others who pointed out that most of the young Muslims who left Europe to join terrorist groups (well before Iraq) were originally recruited into militant Islamic groups because they saw what was happening to the Muslims in Bosnia and just how little the rest of Europe did to stop it.

This detail is one amongst many others that tells me that there is a bigger picture. That Iraq is only one chapter in the ongoing story of Islamic extremist ideology and looking back there are countless examples of the link between Islamic terrorism and political Islam, starting in 1928 in Egypt with a man called Hassan al Banna and coming right up to the present turmoil.

The bigger picture is the history and ideology of political Islam. I accept that there was no link between Saddam Hussein and al qaeda, but I don't think it matters. Saddam Hussein was a threat all by himself. If left in power he would be yet another thorn in our sides. It was better to get rid of him and try to introduce democray into Iraq.

So far, I have not seen anything to suggest Iraqi democracy has actually failed. Like turnea has said elsewhere, people have been predicting civil war in Iraq since day one and we've yet to see it.

If order does come from chaos then what we are seeing could just as easily be the birth pains of Iraqi democracy. Its just too early to tell.


Did I say that?

I was answering your query by explaining to you my personal perspective... that is to say, why I had changed my point of view with regards to the war in Iraq.

What justifies Iraq, in my current opinion, is Neville Chamberlain and his 'peace in our time' speech. We are under attack and we have been for a long time. The removal of Saddam Hussein was a prudent move that denied the enemy a staging ground for further actions against us.

We really are under attack and I only realised it when I saw them hunt for Danish charity workers in Gaza and Indonesia and burn our embassies.
All it took was a few drawings in a newspaper and that was all the justification they needed to attack us.


I appreciate that you think so highly of me CJ. You can rest assured that, no matter what impression I may give here, I am not a xenophobe.

I live in a very small country which still bears a memory of invasion and carries the shame of occupation. We Danes saw our nation taken from us by the nazi's and we saw our government do nothing to prevent it.

Now, we see another such threat approaching, only this time its more dangerous.
There are 1.3 billion Muslims on this planet and about 5½ million Danes. We have already been infiltrated, our laws, autonomy and culture are being challenged and the international institutions which are meant to protect minorities are united against us.

The last time it was the USA and the UK which saved us. This time, at least we can stand beside our allies rather than just waving flags at them after they've finished dying on our beaches to save us.


And when was the Middle East stable?

Was Iraq 'stable' under Saddam Hussein? If it was, then thats not any sort of stability I feel any need to protect.


I will accept what ever people choose to believe of me. I can't change my priorities because other people feel they are wrong. I have to follow my principles.

Thanks for the debate, but this has gotten so far off WMD's now that I'm not going to repsond futher for I fear I am disrupting it. I never intended to get this involved in this debate because I knew I would not be able to stay focused. Sorry.



nighttimer.

I have the utmost respect for you and would never dream of insulting you personally. My remarks were only intended to be comments on the position you (and others) are holding.

Was Saddam Hussein an imminent threat to the United States? No. That is really the only basis for invading a sovereign nation – if they pose an imminent threat. He did not. Any other type of threat can be dealt with through diplomatic means until they can't anymore. But Bush wanted to invade Iraq. Rather than waiting for the diplomatic means to actually fail, he jumped in claiming that they were failing and went to war. So, the reason we are unsure about the intelligence is because we didn't wait for the appropriate intelligence. As has been pointed out, if Saddam was an imminent threat he could've used his WMD's when he was backed into a corner and knew we were coming to get him. What I deduce from that fact is that he had no real intention of attacking the US. Whether he was going to use them on his enemies within his country and possibly in neighboring countries... I don't know. It is certainly more likely. But as a government, the US claimed in 2001 that Saddam was not a threat. After 9/11, suddenly he becomes a threat. It reeks of taking advantage of a tragedy in order to go into Iraq. That is what it seems to be to me. That's what I felt at the time and nothing has come forth to make me change that view.

I think the US government was hoping Saddam would have WMD's lying around somewhere even if they didn't know whether he did or not. They banked on it. There would've been their smoking gun to say... "See! He has WMD's and these WMD's could be used against Americans." What happened instead was we went in there and said "See! He has... WMD's... somewhere... in... the country... ... okay he doesn't seem to have an WMD's lying about... but we're here, so let's liberate the country even though we don't really have a solid plan for doing that.... someone get on the horn with Halliburton."

It was a gamble and Bush lost on the intelligence. He didn't get his smoking gun, so he's been trying to manufacture one ever since. But, I don't believe Saddam was going to attack the United States. I believe what Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice said before 9/11 gave Bush his big opportunity... they said that sanctions were working. Might the sanctions have ultimately failed... might the world have had to deal with Saddam at some point... I think so. But it could've been done smarter and maybe with less unnecessary loss of life. The unnecessary deaths that occur due to Bush's "cowboy diplomacy" fall squarely on this adminstration's head. There is no smoking gun to indicate that Saddam was an imminent threat. We should've stuck with getting Al Qaeda – a much more important problem. Bin Laden was no fan of Saddam's, by the way... it was the invasion that made the enemy of his enemy his friend.

You have to realize Cube Jockey that not everyone has faith in global cooperation to solve the problem. Mr Dick Cheney has said on numerous occasions that he has no faith in the UN and seeks every opportunity to discredit it. I would go so far to say that it is a distinctly neoconservative trait, something that distinguishes it from old right conservatives.

Only by accepting the need to cooperate can the issue of terrorism be handled. I would like to mention it is my personal opinion that the military is not equipped to handle terrorism because it cannot distinguish between friend from foe.

When war was made with Iraq, everyone became involved. So the important question is how to pursue terror suspects without:

1) destabilizing existing police forces. Law and order as the americans have found out and getting one going again isn't so easy.
2) destabilizing the existing judiciary no matter how draconian it may be because if you do - it will appear as puppet replacement.
3) threatening to go it alone and break the 60 year streak of using multilateral consent to take action.

If we can address these three points I think we will have made some headway into addressing this problem.

True or False: This information finally proves beyond any doubt Saddam Hussein's intention to use WMD upon America.

Assuming for the moment the information is valid, does this justify the decision to invade Iraq?

False- in fact, this entire fiasco involving WMDs and the US can only be categorized as "a swing and a miss"- again, and again, and again.

Um- no, at this point, we all pretty much no, except for the eternal "ra ra GW" crowd.

A conservative commentator said it best, here locally, on the radio "You know what sucks about us Conservative republicans- we don't know how to police our own- after all our griping about Clinton and such- we get a guy just as bad, and we don't have the guts, the moral fortitude we demanded of mamby-pamby liberals- to do as we said, to walk the walk that we talked"

And I think that sums up this silly "oh, now we have a smoking gun, okay, how about now, no? What about now?" approach to WMDs

conservatives THOUGHT they had all the answers to global peace and US economic doldrums. Now they may have to admit they elected the wrong "conservative".

I find it amusing that now that GW is in the Bush hating crowd will accept nothing as proof of Saddam’s possession of WMD or his intension to use them against us – including words right out of his mouth.

Odd since when Bill was in it was exactly the opposite from the same crowd – I am sure you have seen the quotes. The tapes surely indicated Bill was correct as well as Teddy K, Hillary, Schumer etc – OH but now its all wrong, all different because GW is president.

I see now. The UN was wrong, Butler was wrong, Blix was wrong ……….. Ya right.

Uh huh, and I'm sure you know that the timeline matters here. It is an indisputable fact that people like Collin Powell and Condoleeza Rice were stating in the 2000/2001 timeframe that Saddam was contained, sanctions were working and he was not a threat. Or was that just anti-Clinton rhetoric?

All of a sudden a year later he was some sort of grave and gathering threat and all of the rhetoric changed from the administration. They were contradicting things they said only a year earlier. Ok fine, so what changed? Where is the proof that Saddam was this grave and gathering threat?

No proof was supplied during the run up to the invasion and even years afterwards we still have no proof. In fact the information we do have suggests that Saddam was contained and he had no WMD.

The item that started this topic isn't a smoking gun and is completely irrelevant to the current debate, especially since it is 10 years old.

Now as far as Congress goes their behavior can't be excused (by me anyway) but they were duped right along with the rest of us. They didn't even have access to the same information Bush did, that also is a proven fact. There is the added dimension that at that time speaking out against the President was unpopular and was likely to earn you an "un-american" tag. For many senators and representatives they couldn't deal with that so they chose the cowardly route. Personally I was proud to be "un-american" then and I'm proud to be in the majority now.

But citing Congress to back up Bush's claims is just ridiculous. Here's how it basically went down with them.
- Bush brings out a RED ball into the Senate
- Frist calls out "This ball is BLUE!"
- Republicans in the chamber echo him "That is the bluest ball I've ever seen"
- Democrats start going along "That ball really is Blue, I haven't seen anything like it before."

Edited to add: See also this report from Murray Wass on Iraq Intelligence.


So basically the entire intelligence community told Bush Iraq was not a threat to the US unless they felt like they might be attacked or if we attacked them unsuccessfully. Bush's response to this - let's go attack them.

I guess you “forgot” the run up to the invasion. There was UN 1441 , and thousands of troops on the border. You forgot that there had been no inspectors in Iraq since 1998 and certainly Powell was trying to make the Egyptians feel safe with that statement. Also he was speaking of new WMD production capability and not the existing missing WMD as detailed by Butler and Blix and admitted to by Iraq. This was the subject of 1441. The “proof” s in the testimony of these men. Forget what Bush said, you don’t believe him anyway. Just read the testimony of the people who were there!

And why would tapes from 1995 be irrelevant?? This is YEARS after he later claimed (to Blix) that he had destroyed the tons of WMD he admitted to having.

On the contrary this goes directly to the heart of the matter and his non compliance with UN 1441.

Oh ok I see, so Powell was lying (well before anyone was talking about 1441) to make people feel safe and then when we decided we'd like to get a war started he changed his tune?

You can brandish about 1441 as much as you'd like, but the fact of the matter is that the UN did not approve the war, we acted unilaterally because we said they violated it. But justifying the war with 1441 when the UN itself disagreed or at the very least wanted more solid proof simply doesn't work.

And Blix never said anything of the sort, he said he couldn't find any weapons and that the destruction of some weapons (which we believed they had, and we could ahve been wrong about that too) was not documented. He never once said that he believed Saddam was hiding weapons but he did want more time for inspections.


Because it was ten years ago and not only was everyone in our administration stating that Iraq was contained and not a threat, so was everyone in the intelligence community. That makes that tape irrelevant.

The biggest problem with your whole line of thought is the fact that even after Saddam fell we haven't found a scrap of this WMD we claimed they had and that we claimed we knew about.

Powell was in EGYPT and for Egypt, which Iraq had no gripe with , he was contained. He certainly wasn’t going to attack neighbors with us flying overhead. But this has squat to do with wat Blix was looking for and I have posted it. TONS of VX and thousands of liters of Anthrax. If you want to explain to me why that would not be dangerous I am all ears.

And the old kiss off for all of this was “Saddam didn’t agree with the terrorists and would never give them WMD to hurt the US” . The tapes seem to say otherwise and I sure there is more to come as they go through them.



We “claimed” little more than the UN where most of the evidence was. Remember Iraq ADMITTED that had the quantities I quoted above and Blix has testified to this. The fact that they are missing IS a disaster and I strongly agree with you that we should have NEVER gone in without knowing we could put our hands on some or all of them.

The good news could be the tapes. If Syria got the WMD (as some speculate) and they think we will soon know this they will be reluctant to pass them on.

I am really hesitant to get involved in this thread, because it is the very same issues, responses, and rhetoric that was in the multitudes of similar threads in the past.

Moif, I very much respect your ability to come to a new perspective, and adjust your viewpoint on things accordingly. I say that not because you have reached conclusions some might say would be similar to mine, but simply because the ability to reevaluate seems in scant supply.

I am not going to go over point by point any of the issues here. I have done that ad nauseum in the other threads, and it is quite clear that such debate has no point...those here against the war will remain so, just as those in favor are criticized for their staunchness on their perspective. Suffice it to say that I myself remain convinced of two things.

1. Most of those vehemently opposed to the war might have made the very same decision Bush did if presented with the same set of facts, had they been in the position he was. Note--this has only a small relationship with WMD facts, but rather more the facts relating to our involvement with Iraq post Gulf War, and with the facts regarding the Middle Eastern situation in general.

2. If they had not, they would likely have discovered that we would still be in the same predicament we were in prior to 9-11, athat sanctions were in no way a feasible long term solution, and that the liklihood of eventually having to remove Saddam by force would be becoming more and more apparent, but that delaying action would be making that more and more difficult.

There are two facts of the situation which are never really discussed in these threads, but which I feel drove the entire situation. They are:

1. Saddam and his regime was a destabilizing force in the Middle East, and our sanctions, etc. post Gulf War were only making it more destabilizing.

2. The only way to remove Saddam's regime from power was by force.

Anyway, I'll just leave this to be mulled over. As I said above, I see no point in getting involved again in the same set of debates, as I see the very same issues/attitudes/perceptions now that I did previously, indicating that all the previous debates were useless. Regardless of your perception of how the war is going now, and whether it should have occurred, it seems irrefutable that the only possible answer to Ringwraith's initial question:

True or False: This information finally proves beyond any doubt Saddam Hussein's intention to use WMD upon America.

is True. I mean, the man said so. Who knows better what his intentions were than he would? What is there to debate about on this? The answer to the second question would still be very debatable, but not the first, IMHO. Yet, there are those here who won't even accept that much, again indicating that debate on this issue is pointless, where the clearly apparent is repeatedly rhetorically rejected (feeling alliterate today, I guess ).

One final note...please don't infer my current thoughts on the war. I haven't provided them, I can assure you no one here but me knows them, and they are irrelevant to the issues being debated.

Then answer this one simple question. Why didn't he use them on our invading forces in either Gulf War, and especially the last one where it is clear we were out to remove him?

I hope Hobbes (and Cube Jockey) don't mind me giving my answer to this question...and it is a fair question.

My answer is simply.....I (we) don't know. But here's some possibilities...

Maybe the weapons were destroyed by Hussein in the days leading up to the attack. Maybe they had already been moved. Maybe the order was given, but communications were disrupted so that the order was never received. Maybe the commanders in the field decided it was a bad idea and disobeyed orders. Maybe the weapons systems were destroyed early on in the air attack. Maybe the systems just simply malfunctioned. Maybe they weren't as far along in obtaining delivery vehicles as was thought. Maybe some or all of the above. Maybe some other unthought of reason.....Maybe Maybe Maybe....

Or maybe they didn't have the weapons. I don't discount that possibility either.

But the point remains...WE DON'T KNOW why they didn't use them. Only that they weren't (thank God) used.

Hobbes, I am in agreement with your last post and I believe it sums up my feelings as well on the whole Iraq/WMD debate. I think the most revealing part of your post however is the portion dealing with how people debate this particular topic.

It seems that (with the exception of Moif) few if any people...particularly in opposition to the war... are ready to even begin to accept facts that appear to be in direct opposition to their originally stated views. Rather than rethink their position, the first instinct always appears to be to "spin" so that it appears to be something different. Very curious and at times rather humorous to witness. And its also the reason I avoid much participation in debate here. As Hobbes said....whats the purpose? Nobody's mind changes much at the end of the day regardless. One thing I am sure of though... nobody will lose any sleep over my lack of participation. Carry on!!!

With all due respect, what facts ringwraith? In this post you cited a whole lot of maybe's. Maybe is not grounds to start a war with another country and spend almost half a trillion dollars of tax payer money (and counting).

The item you cited which started this thread backs up the "Saddam was a bad man and he didn't like the US" but it in no way proves that he had WMD. It isn't even recent so it couldn't possibly have been justification for the war in 2003. And that is really the key issue here. It is certainly not any kind of smoking gun like you suggested with the title.

Finally, you and others seem to have completely ignored this little gem so I'll post it again:


There you have it right there from all the US Intelligence agencies, a recent threat assessment and they have basically ruled against this tape which was 8 years old at that point.

Hmmm...Where to begin...

Lets start with this.

One of the questions of the thread asks about Saddam's "intentions" with regards to WMD usage on the United States.

We have a recording of a man (Saddam Hussein)who is at the center of all the pre/post war discussion about WMD's and his intent discussing ways to use them on the United States. I would hope a reasonable man such as yourself might see that and think....wow, Hussein really DID at least at some point consider ways of attacking the United States with WMD's. Thats an incredible thing to discover. This however was not what you chose to do. Instead you immediately looked to discredit/downplay the information. Fascinating...

You quote a U.S. intelligence threat assessment stating he had no intent to use WMD's. In other words, you put more faith in a report given to the president about Saddam's intentions than you do in the words coming directly from Husseins mouth itself. Leave aside for a moment that this report comes from intelligence agencies that have been suggested by those on the left as unreliable, don't you think its a bit ironic that in this particular instance you put more faith in an intelligence report on Hussein's intentions than your own ears and eyes?



First I would agree that this one statement doesn't prove he had WMD's. It was never meant to. The fault in your premise is that WMD's and whether he had them or not is the "key" issue here. I disagree. IMHO, The KEY issue here is and always has been his INTENT to use such weapons. As long as we felt he had the will to use them, he could never be allowed to possess them. I think everyone is in agreement about this. Obviously, these tapes are very illuminating when having a discussion pertaining to his "intent".

CJ, your last post is a textbook example of what I was talking about in my last post. Not so much the debate on WMD, but the WAY people debate it. I'm willing to concede that the threat assesment you put up was worthy of being examined. I would like to know more about this. I'm even willing to state that its possible that he was not an imminent threat at the time war broke out. My mind is not so closed it can't be changed if the evidence is there. Unfortunately, it seems I am in the minority. And thats unfortunate. If we are ever going to get to the bottom of this, we have to stop acting like the "opposition" is the enemy. It is possible for both sides to have valid points.

You're right about one thing. I posted a whole lot of maybes. Thats because at the end of the day all any of us can do is speculate what Saddam would or wouldn't have done. But what I CAN do is point to his own words discussing ways in which an attack could be carried out and know that he was at least considering using WMD's against us. THIS is indisputable and oh by the way....a FACT.

As Hobbes stated, this debate appears to be pointless. I am discontinuing my participation in it now. Carry on, and have a good day!

(returning to lurker mode)

Maybe you don't remember, but Moif had a baby come into the world not long ago. And when this happens a lot of people take a step back, and look at things more differently, because they realize they are now responsible for another life and want to bring them up the best they can. A lot of people do change their positions on many things when they have a child come into their life. I know I had. I remember those posts Moif made about and against the war. I can't presume to know how Moif changed since his baby came into his life but he has impressed me.

Even though a baby has a hard time opening their eyes, they help open ours with ease.

I don't see why that is so shocking, we did afterall bomb his country into oblivion in the early 90's and the thing you keep forgetting is that this was from 1995 or so. Context is everything. So post Gulf War Saddam was steamed at the US and considered using WMD, that isn't exactly the most shocking news I've heard.

Now had this recording been made in 2002 or 2003 then maybe it would be something to be concerned about. But with the benefit of history we know that regardless of what Saddam wanted or didn't want he never delivered and had no such capability. The facts are crystal clear there and only the most loyal Bush apologists disagree.

I'm sure there are dozens of countries that would like to take a shot att us, but none of them act on it. I'm also sure that the intelligence community learns of many of these intentions but we can't very well attack every country on the planet that dislikes our country, it is all about managing threats.

In this case Saddam was widely acknowledged as a non-threat by every entity that has the authority to make that assessment. The problem is that the Bush administration wanted this war and they fixed the facts around the policy. This intelligence briefing proves that as well as a whole host of other evidence.

So head on back to the shadows if you like but let's not forget who started a topic called "WMD smoking gun" when it is nothing of the sort. A smoking gun would have been a significant WMD find or some documentation, not a recording from 1995 stating Saddam wanted to use WMD against the US. So if you want to frame the debate into a useful discussion I'd suggest in the future not using rhetorical tools to win points for your "side".


And let's keepp it in context of 1995. You'll notice I haven't once denied that it happened, in fact I'm quite sure he had all sorts of nasty thoughts and designs. However, when you are a world leader like the US you need a little more justification to start a long, expensive war that destabilizes a region than the fact that someone really, really, really doesn't like you. If Saddam was serious in his intentions then other evidence could have been found over the last 10 years, it hasn't materialized.

Simple. He had nothing to gain. Would his use of chemical WMD had any impact on the outcome in Iraq? Clearly not. It was easier for him to play the martyr (as he had been doing, and quite successfully, for a decade) without using the WMD he had, as that would likely have turned the Arab community against him. His WMD were effective against defenseless civilians, clustered in a group. They would have had little effect on a rapidly advancing army.

Even the 9-11 commission found that Saddam clearly intended to acquire and use WMD against the U.S. Just because he didn't doesn't indicate he wasn't going to. He said he intended to, the 9-11 commission said he intended to. What exactly will it take to get an admission that this was indeed what he intended? I really don't get the refusal to accept this, when all evidence indicates its truth.



Actually, the 9-11 commission looked at the facts, and completely disagreed.



"Head on back to the shadows?" Please clarify how this is intended to "frame the debate in a useful discussion?" Oh, never mind, I suspect the answer will be 'he started it first', which stopped being a useful retort somewhere around first grade.

It is quite clear a definition needs to be revisited, since it is being completely ignored in this discussion (I suspect because it doesn't 'frame the debate' the way certain factions would like it framed).



Ringwraith asked whether this shows Saddam had an intention of acquiring and using WMD. Nothing at all would have to be currently available for this to be the case. So, no, the smoking gun would NOT have to be "a significant WMD find or some documentation". All it would have to be is evidence that this was indeed his intention. However, all those against the war are so afraid of any admission of this sort that they simply refuse to accept the fact that this was indeed his intention, when all evidence indicates that this was. To borrow a quote, the facts are crystal clear there and only the most ardent Bush critics disagree.

While we're asking questions, please indicate how sanctions/diplomacy were [I]ever[I] going to remove Saddam's regime from power?

The answer, of course, is they weren't.

This reasoning is false on so many levels I don't know where to begin.

You ask us to conclude beyond any doubt that Saddam intended to use WMD against the US, not based on any facts, but based on an announcement of what was about to be revealed. You can't make conclusions from unsupported statements. There is a big difference between evidence, and claims of evidence. Let me ask the following of all those who said this was proof beyond any doubt :

If Cybercast News Service announced today: "ABC News was going to report that the world was coming to an end tomorrow. This report was being called the "smoking gun" of armageddon. The New York Sun announced the report was authentic."

Would you conclude beyond any doubt that this were true? Without at least seeing some facts first? That is the first thing you are asking us to do---accept a conclusion based on the assumption that future information will prove it. I would want to see the report--fast! Find all information available. You, on the other hand, would say goodbye to your family and friends, make peace with your Maker, and jump out of a window.

This absurd example should make one thing clear to you. You didn't conclude that Saddam was planning to attack the US based on an announcement of some future evidence neither seen nor heard. You had made that conclusion a long time ago.


But, let's continue further.


Your source said, "The tapes are being called the "smoking gun" of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq." Fine. Who said this? No reference given. So, The Cybercast News Service said it! Tell me, if the Huffington Post said "smoking gun" about another issue, would you duck? No. Why? Because The Huffington Post is left wing with an agenda, you say. But what about your source, CNS. They are right wing with an agenda. Their motto on their home page: "The Right News. Right Now." CNS Home Page

BOTTOM LINE:
Left wing news says "smoking gun", find a source.
Right wing news says "smoking gun", find a source.
Cheney says "smoking gun", find an ambulance.


So, let's talk about the tapes--the only source of new information in this whole story. Here's the way your source announced the story:


"(CNSNews.com) - Secret audiotapes of Saddam Hussein discussing ways to attack America with weapons of mass destruction will be the subject of an ABC "Nightline" program..."

Holy smokes! Saddam actually discussing ways to attack the US! On tape!! With WMD!!! I have GOT to see this!!!!


Now, here is the ABC News Nightline announcement of the story:

EXCLUSIVE: Saddam's Secret Tapes
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Investigat...tory?id=1616996

And here is the reference under the picture of Saddam:

"ABC News has obtained tapes of Saddam Hussein discussing WMDs and the inevitability of terrorism, recorded in the years before the dictator was removed from power."

Wait a minute. Inevitabily of terrorism? What about attacks? I want to know about Saddam talking about ways to attack us! But after scanning the article quickly, you finally find it! The s m o k i n g gun!! Quoting the ABC article directly:

"One of the most dramatic moments in the 12 hours of recordings comes when Saddam predicts — during a meeting in the mid-1990s — a terrorist attack on the United States."

What? CNS didn't mention predictions. Saddam Hussein is NOT Nostradamus!! There must be more!! Here's what Saddam actually said, again quoting ABC:

Saddam: "Terrorism is coming. I told the Americans a long time before Aug. 2 and told the British as well … that in the future there will be terrorism with weapons of mass destruction." Saddam goes on to say such attacks would be difficult to stop. "In the future, what would prevent a booby-trapped car causing a nuclear explosion in Washington or a germ or a chemical one?" But he adds that Iraq would never do such a thing. "This is coming, this story is coming but not from Iraq."

Is this interesting? Hell yes,it's interesting! In the words of ABC, it's dramatic. Does it prove Saddam intended to use WMDs against the US? No. ABC said Saddam "adds that Iraq would never do such a thing". Saddam said "this story is coming but not from Iraq". The hype sure did give Nightline's ratings a boost, though. But no, it doesn't prove anything. It is not an admission. It was a denial. It is not a threat. It was a prediction.

"A spokeswoman for John Negroponte, director of national intelligence, said information contained in the transcriptions of the tapes was already known to intelligence officials".

A pretty mild response to a smoking gun, don't you think?

You forget a few things. Iraq had a well-documented history of WMD development and was suspected to have reconstituted that program following the Gulf War. The extent to which this is true is impossible to determine considering the extent to which weapons inspectors were stymied in their appraisal of the state of the Iraqi WMD program. The nature of the world after 9/11 does not allow the United States to be soft in their assessment of national security threats, and therefore, when we consider the history of WMD development with respect to Hussein, combined with Hussein’s inability to cooperate with the U.N. from the end of Gulf War to the invasion, we can easily determine that Iraq was a global liability and could be removed with relative ease.

The tapes only confirm what most of us already knew, and although they certainly help the case for the removal of Hussein, the case was already made clear and justifiable long before these tapes surfaced.

Who cares if it was his intention Hobbes? I personally find that completely irrelevant as anything approaching a justification for this war - and let's be honest that is the motivation behind this thread and pretty much every thread on Iraq we've had here. There are plenty of dangerous dictators that have much more than intentions of acquiring WMD, they actually have them.

If I have the "intention" of becoming a billionaire and ten years pass annd I make absolutely no forward progress towards that goal, and in fact regress doesn't that intention stop being relevant?

First we KNOW Saddam had WMD because we found them, and he admitted to producing and concealing them as I have posted. Both Blix and Butler have testified to this and while we found and destroyed (dismantled) his nuclear capability and shut down his chem/bio manufacturing for the most part – Saddam still maintained substantial stockpiles of WMD. To say he had no WMD is to ignore mountains of UN evidence.

As to wht he didn’t use them against us there are several possible reasons.

His supporters (France, Russia) no doubt threatened to pull support is he did
His commanders refused because it would involve the death penalty when they lost.
It was useless in any case since we had the gear to protect us and their troops had far less protection. They had no organized delivery system (rocket launchers set up etc) so they could only use the weapons in close and if they were not protected they would surely kill themselves.

IMO there are lots of tapes being translated and we will soon hear more irrefutable evidence that Saddam maintained and concealed his WMD stockpiles which included tons of VX and thousands of liters of anthrax.

Firstly, please, PLEASE stop with your sensless and insulting slander of France and other countries. I have challenged you repeatedly to show any evidence that the French government was involved in any scandal, you consistently refuse are unable to do so, but keep making these inane remarks.

Now you have gone so far as to list France as an Iraqi supporter? Please let us not forget that France had AGREED to war against Iraq with UN sanction, which it had promised not to VETO. Either present SOME evidence of this, or stop slandering a nation like that. You don't like it when people speak ill of the US as a whole without evidence, yet your vast double-standard here is clear. Please knock it off.


Secondly, your comment about the Us 'having the gear' shows a deeply limited knowledge of military operations. The US did not 'have the gear to prevent casualties'. Every soldier had a gas suit and an atropene pen, but that is hardly suitable protection against a gas attack, in particular an unexpected one. The Iraq military, as you are fond of pointing out, actually had experienbce in using these weapons in the Iran-Iraq war, and they used them highly capably at that time. Besides, in the orders he gave his conventional military, he clearly did not care about the lives of his own soldiers.


So again, you are asked, why would the nation, led by a madman who according to you wants nothing more than to use WMD on Americans, NOT use WMD on Americans when he was given the perfect opportunity and justification, and his back was against the wall with nothing to lose?

Would ANY OTHER country in the world NOT have used any and all weapons in this situation? Would the US? Would Iran?

Why not Iraq? What possible reason could there have been to not deploy these eapons in the face of his own destruction? After all, he did it before against Iran. He had to know his number was up, so why hold back?

The answer is pretty obvious to me. Here is goes: The inspectors were supposed to have unfettered access to all sites, correct? If he were expecting to be judged for compliance on pain of "severe consequences", why would he leave the weapons inside his country for the inspectors to find? And he certainly had ample time to do so. He likely never believed that we were serious about invasion, as he had played chicken so many times before.

Somehow, he had the means to obtain sophisticated anti-aircraft targeting technology during the last couple of years before the war, even under sanctions. He brought in freshwater dolphins for his palace fountains, he built palaces. He smuggled out tons and tons of oil in barrels. Why would he not have invested in WMD during this time? Certainly isn't because he didn't have the means, it would only be because he chose not to. IN the meantime, everything else is passing across those fluid country borders. Why not WMD? Is that really such an outlandish notion?

The problem Mrs P is that every single authority on the subject, even those in this administration (Powell and Rice to name a few), stated that it was an outlandish notion and that Saddam didn't have WMD and that sanctions were working. That is until the administration decided it wanted a war, then we simply couldn't have people making statements like that, it just wouldn't do...

The data from inspectors, intelligence agencies, and complete access to the country (after the invasion) including many people supposedly responsible for these programs backs that up. A lot of that evidence is sitting right here in this thread, much more of it is sitting in the 3 years of archives here at AD.

We could sit around all day talking about what Saddam might have been capable of but the simple fact of the matter is that the facts tell a pretty clear story and that is that Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction, and the UN had confirmed the destruction of the vast majority (90-95% of his stockpiles). The other 5 to 10% could easily be attributed to the likes of stories like Vermillion documented or simply due to incompetence and poor recordkeeping. I always find it funny that people believe Saddam kept immaculate records of his weapons. Does everyone think he was running SAP or something?

There are no facts to support that Saddam had WMD, period. As for this tape, again it is in no way a smoking gun as was suggested in the original post. Instead it was a gun that was fired 10 years ago, had sand poured in it, was not maintained and has subsequently rusted.

This argument gets more tedious every time someone posts it and I suppose we'll all be dealing with this nonsense for years to come because the last 3 years have seen no end to it here.

We are, as I suspected, arguning in circles here. Saddam's intention to have nuclear weapons is in no way tied to the reality of whether or not he had them at the time. Further, neither of these relates directly to whether or not he was a risk to the United States...he was that whether he, in reality, had weapons, or even whether or not he truly intended to have them.

Further, the war was NEVER exclusively about this one issue--regardless of what was or was not put forward publicly. Therefore, the justificaction or lack thereof for the war does NOT hinge on this one issue...it never did.

So, what does this tape, and Saddam's stated intention, show? It shows that his regime was indeed a risk to the United States. CJ, you yourself have mentioned, in this very thread, how angry Saddam was, and how his hatred of the US and desire to get even didn't even surprise you. Combine that with his history of using WMD, and you certainly have a risk. I don't think that is debatable. How much risk, and what to do about it? That is debatable. Again, why is it we can't even agree on what seems to be the most obvious of facts, even if we might disagree on their degree, and the actions justified by them? Is it really so hard for those against this war to admit that Saddam Hussein was indeed a threat to the United States? If so, no debate on Iraq has any purpose. As the saying goes...there's no hope of agreeing on a solution if we can't agree on the problem.

Well, first look at the two reports I posted in the 'Bush's Leadership thread yesterday. Both indicated that there was little likelyhood that Hussein moved and WMD out of Iraq. It would have been next to impossible for him to do so, and there is no reasonable motive why he would have disarmed this weapon and shipped it off to one of his oldest and most hated enemies, Syria.

That's pretty cut and dry. Even in your scenario above, what would he expect to gain by disarming in this way? Syria and Iraq are enemies, did he expect to just 'ask for them back' afterwards? I just think it is absurd to presume that, facing invasion, he would ship away to an enemy one of his best defensive weapons, one he had a history and experience using with great effect, when he had his back against the wall and was fighting for his own life and that of his family.




Well firstly, I find it an outlandish notion that he had these vast open fluid borders. Call me crazy, but in the lead up to invasion would you not imagine the US had Iraqi borders under arial and reconnaisance surveillance? Secondly, this is all guesswork. Frankly the CIA inspectors and the Carnegie report have all concluded he had no WMD after 1996, and he shipped nothing abroad. This has been accepted by the republican party, Foxnews, even the White House commented positively on the report.


Lets make that last one clear, when presented with the CIA report saying threir had been no WMD in Iraq, the White house comment was that 'Yes, but the Democrats received the same pre-war intel as the President and they were for the war'.

In other words, while still justifying the reason they went into Iraq, they admit the intelligence was false, and made no effect to contradict the report stating there were no WMD. The white house line became 'yes, but we didn't know that'.

So the debate of wheither the invasion was justified is an entirely different one, but it seems to me that EVEN TO BUSH's WHITE HOUSE, the debate on wheither there actually were WMD in Iraq is over.


So why are people here still struggling with that? I posted a rather lengthy mesage going over all this in another thread in this forum. Might want to look that over...





I entirely disagree. There are two debates going on here.

One is, was Bush justified in invading Iraq based on the idea, which turned out to be false after the fact, that there were WMD in Iraq? That is an interesting debate, and one that continues.

That is not the issue I am dealing with. Others, like Ted for example, are having a different debate. Regardless of what people thought, WERE there WMD in Iraq, and WAS Iraq ACTUALLY a clear and present Danger? To that debate the answer is a pretty clear and categorical no, and that no has been supported by every single post-war report to come out of Iraq. There were no WMD, they were NOT shipped to Syria, one of Iraq's enemies, and the Intel was false. The senate subcommittee on investigations has already has an entire investigation into WHY the intel was fasle, ending in damning indeitment of the US intelligence community, which Bush jr accepted and thanked them for.

Like I said, that second debate is over in washington, why are there still people trying to fight it here?

And I responded with the names of people in the French government who were involved. Its seems it’s only “senseless” if you disagree. Actually France consistently resisted putting the direct threat of force into any UN Resolution including 1441. You are correct there is no absolute proof so it is my opinion – shared by lots of others. Only France had the gall to lobby for an end to the Sanctions in 1999 so they could close the big oil contracts Saddam promised them.

UNITED NATIONS, May 12 -- Former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein tried to buy influence in French and Russian political circles, according to Iraqi intelligence documents released Thursday by a congressional committee investigating corruption in the $64 billion U.N. oil-for-food program.
The documents, released by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, describe Iraqi intelligence plans to influence politicians and businessmen with close ties to French President Jacques Chirac and Russian President Vladimir Putin.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5051201854.html



WRONG again. The US military traind extensively with the equipment and wore the gear as they went in. They also had sensors to detect the agents. In contrast the Iraqi folks had suites hidden in hospitals.




As I have said before IMO Saddam wanted to use them but his friends (in France and Russia) advised against it and I am sure his generals had no desire to open Pandora’s Box. Remember we threatened to use nukes if he did this.

The bigger question is why would he go to war at all against the most powerful army in the history of the world. WMD or not he had NO chance to win. We may never know but my opinion is that he gambled we would not move in without the UN and he felt sure his friends in the SC would not vote to use force.




HUH??? Come on look at a map Vermillion. Notice the border with Syria? We cannot even close it TODAY with all the troops we have in the country. ALL of the WMD we were looking for could have been loaded in 2 tractor trailers and driven out of Iraq in hours. Or put in planes and flown out.

The man who served as the no. 2 official in Saddam Hussein's air force says Iraq moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria before the war by loading the weapons into civilian aircraft in which the passenger seats were removed.The Iraqi general, Georges Sada, makes the charges in a new book, "Saddam's Secrets," released this week. He detailed the transfers in an interview yesterday with The New York Sun.
"There are weapons of mass destruction gone out from Iraq to Syria, and they must be found and returned to safe hands," Mr. Sada said. "I am confident they were taken over."
http://www.nysun.com/article/26514

No you most certainly did not. You responded with names of people close to the Russian government, somewhat inevitable as Rusian Gas is a government company, but you certainly never gave any names of politicians in France capable of influencing foreign policy. You also constantly ignore the fact that US companies, and US companies very close to Bush Jr were more involved in the oil for food scandal than every other nation involved put together...



Actually you have consistently presented France as an Iraqi ally, which is absurd, and I think you will find very few agree with that extremist a position.



So now France is corrupt because Iraq had plans to try and corrupt them? Few steps missing there, my dear Ted.



I think you will find it is you who are entirely in error here. Firstly, there were not enough gas suits to go around, which caused a bit of a scandal you may recall, secondly they certainly did not 'wear them going in', in the desert those suits were incapacitating in the heat, and took an average of 2 minutes to put on, and thats for men trained in their use.

Look, stop trying to pretend the Iraqis COULD not have used WMD. Of course they could, just like they did against Iran, very efectively. Just like chemical weapons were used in WWI against attacking troops, even if friendlies did not have moden NBC suits. And ALL that is even presuming Hussein gave a damn about the lives of his troops, which bu his orders clearly he did not.




And I have told you that is borderline insane. You need to provide SOME evidence, ANY at all before you make ludicrous statements like this. France was NOT corrupt, you have consistently been challenged to provide evidence of this and have not, but EVEN IF THEY WERE, that does NOT make them Iraqi Allies, and EVEN IF IT DID, that does not give them any influence on Hussein's military decisions once the war has already started. The chain of your suppositions (all totally unsubstantiated) is growing hilariously wrong.




Firstly, thank you for AGAIN answering a question I never asked. I never said close the borders, I said monitor, which I will bet real money the US was doing very carefully. And they most certainly have the capability, they have done it for longer borders for years.

Secondly: thank you for this frank admission. So all of Iraq's supposed WMD could have been loaded onto two trucks? Thats the amount of unproven, unsubstantiated equipment you are talking about?

Ignore for a fact that both the CIA and the Carnegie report said there is no evidence at all that this happened, and plenty that it did not, not to mention no REASON why Iraq would have given WMD to a fierce enemy like Syria..

Now we have you admitting that the phantom equipment in question was so scarce and small, if could have fit on the back of two trucks?



Here we get into the Ted two-step again, where any Iraqi who says anything about there being no WMD is lying, and any Iraqi who says anything that supports Ted, no matter how unverified or incredible, MUST be speaking the God's honest truth. Right. I love how in THIS case, you take the unsubstantiated, unverified word of an Iraqi in a book that has not been released OVER the word of the CIA, AND for that matter every other eport to come out of Iraq since the war.

France had enormous interests in Iraq and even proposed in 1999 the dropping of all sanctions so they could get their big fat oil contracts. Iraq did not shrink from pressuring France in this regard as well

An official Iraqi newspaper warned France on Sunday of a high price to pay if it sides with the
United States in a UN Security Council vote linking a suspension of sanctions to a new disarmament
regime.
As a result it would be "only logical for the French (oil) companies Elf and Total to close their
offices in Baghdad and lose the immense concessions which they have won but not yet exploited."

"The numerous advantages which French companies enjoy on the Iraqi market could also be halted,"
Hashemi said, protesting that Iraqis had "suffered a lot because of the position adopted by the
French government."

http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/1999/msg00786.html




Well yes as has been said. The tons of VX and thousands of liters of anthrax etc were quite compact. Still capable of killing hundreds of millions of people.

The survey group’s interim report concluded that Saddam was firmly committed to acquiring nuclear weapons but that none had been found. I