US Ends Search for WMD in Iraq

[Ferno]

I got rid of my original post. it didn't say what I wanted it to say..

Here's what I find most interesting Pebkac.. instead of asking how or why I knew, you instead take a shot at me. Now we have two choices. we can either keep going the way things are intended to go, or I can take a bite out of you. your call pal.

[Pebkac]

You're right, and I apologize. It's weird how different things get on different people's nerves in different ways. There's been a great deal of gloating in the anti-Bush circles about this, but one of phrases that I'm completely fed up with hearing from anti-Iraq people is that they "knew" the whole time that there were no WMDs in Iraq. Fer pete's sake man, no, you didn't know. No one did for sure. The much maligned "Coalition of the Willing" (da da da dahhh!) went in and looked for themselves, then they TOLD you that there were no WMD stockpiles.

As my previous post indicates, a full and thorough search was never allowed because the UN failed at every turn to enforce its edicts. It's the basis for my belief that Bush had no choice but to invade Iraq if he was serious about fighting a global war on terror. That Saddam might provide a weapon to a terrorist group was too great a possibility to ignore. That's why I am baffled when people say that invading Iraq was detrimental to the WOT when it was, in fact, absolutely essential.

As for my tone, once again I apologize. That's what happens when one starts to equate all posters that argue from the left with your average Democratic Underground member. Stereotyping es muy malo.

[Ferno]

well for what it's worth, i got some of my info from www.informationclearinghouse.info. most of the stories there are links from other papers, such as moscow times, the scotsman press, BBC, etc.

So saddamn selling terrorists a nuke is about as truthful as me selling you a cardboard box and claiming there's gold in it.

Besides, the invasion hasn't done anything for the WOT. it's only shifted it's focus. Also, the reason why there's been no attacks on US soil is simple. Why would AQ send their guys all the way over here when there are americans already in their back yard?

[Will Robinson]

Something else the anti-war crowd never seems to acknowledge is the fact that the sanctions were quickly falling apart. Not only did they fail at every other turn to acomplish the WMD disarmament of Saddam, thanks to the bribes Saddam was paying the french and russians, the U.N. was soon to give up on even maintaining the ineffective containment of Saddam!
That would have been a major victory for him.
And only a fool would believe he wouldn't resume operations in all his weapons laboratories!

Now consider that before we chased bin Laddins sorry butt into the hills of Pakistan bin Laddin had rebuffed Saddams offer to work together because Saddam wasn't a true muslim.
Saddam offered to help al Queda to aquire training and weapons if bin Laddin would help him in his anti-american ventures. Some of those ventures were a failed assasination of an american president and funding suicide bombers in Israel.
So once bin Laddin was on the run you have to consider he may forgo his distaste for working with a secularist like Saddam in order to preserve his safety and further his agenda which included bombing americans at home and abroad.

Do you chase a rat into a hole and then not carry out extermination procedures? Do you just let the rat go or do you clear out all the rats nests you can?

And finally, as I promised to do everytime I see one of these lame arguments made I remind you:

It's the 'War on Terror'.
Not the 'War on a Few Terrorists who are Hiding in a Cave Somewhere but not All Terrorists or even Most Terrorists....just a Few Terrorists'.

[Pebkac]

well for what it's worth, i got some of my info from www.informationclearinghouse.info. most of the stories there are links from other papers, such as moscow times, the scotsman press, BBC, etc.

I understand that you aren't talking out of your ass when you say what you say, but with all due respect to the sources you cited, they don't know anything for sure either. Saddam never allowed for a full search.

"You can search here, but not here. You can look at this facility, but not for another two weeks. You can seize all the documents you want, just not at these facilities. Sure, you can search my palaces, all of them except for these others, which I won't allow you to search." </saddam>

This went on for 12 years, plenty of time for him to do God knows what with any weapons he may have had. It is shameful that neither the UN nor the US smacked that crazy bastard off of his throne at the first sign of resistance.

So saddamn selling terrorists a nuke is about as truthful as me selling you a cardboard box and claiming there's gold in it.

That analogy is flawed. You're still stuck in the "Bush Lied vs. Bush Didn't Lie!" frame of mind. Saddam selling terrorists a nuke was a possibility that could not be discounted because no one ever knew for sure whether or not he had them. Intelligence agencies the world over (including yours) said he did, Saddam said he did not. Whose word are you gonna take, Saddam's?

No one knew for certain that he didn't have programs and stockpiles in place, and anyone who says they did know are deluding themselves.

Besides, the invasion hasn't done anything for the WOT. it's only shifted it's focus. Also, the reason why there's been no attacks on US soil is simple. Why would AQ send their guys all the way over here when there are americans already in their back yard?

Well, yeah. By invading Iraq, every terrorist worth his salt is hightailing it to Iraq to kill the infidels, where they are soon dispatched to paradise. Sure, Iraq is an unstable mess right now, but the object is to kill more of theirs than they do of yours, and that seems to be what's happening in Iraq. They're all gathering up together and coming to us, which makes it easier to kill them. This is a good thing, not a bad thing, and renders the first sentence of the above quote moot. That shifting of focus that you write off as inconsequential is actually protecting Americans here at home, which is Bush's job.

[Ferno]

so you're saying america went over to Iraq because of non compliance with the sanctions?

man you guys believe the WMD thing so much you're willing to go to any stretch for it.

Now, prove the link between Saddam and Osama and I'll eat crow.

[Pebkac]

so you're saying america went over to Iraq because of non compliance with the sanctions?

Yes, and for numerous other reasons. Bush laid all of his reasons out on the table back at the start. Do a Google search.

What I am saying is so bloody simple.

1. It was the position of intelligence agencies the world over, from the UN on down, that Iraq had WMD stockpiles and programs in place to develop more. It wasn't just American intelligence that came to this conclusion. Even France and Germany were on board.

2. A system of inspections was put in place to determine the answer conclusively.

3. Iraq puts up roadblocks at every turn, disallowing the full and unfettered access that Iraq promised as a condition of ceace-fire. (He should have been removed at the first evidence of obstruction.)

4. Without these inspections, the only data to go on was the same intelligence (gathered by the intelligence agencies of numerous nations) that lead the free world (and several in the Middle Eastern world) to the conclusions mentioned in point 1. Thus it went throughout the 90s.

Flash forward to September 12, 2001

5. Bush has to take point 1 into account, because he's just promised to fight a war on terror. The administration reviews the same data and reaches the same conclusions that were held by the world just a scant two years before.

6. A very capable terrorist network + a sympathetic, weapon-possessing Iraq = not a risk worth taking if you're really going to stir up the hornet's nest of radical islam. The result of ignoring that threat could have been disastrous. You can't ask a man charged with the defense of a nation to cross his fingers and hope he didn't err on the side of anti-caution.

7. Bush had a choice. Believe the world and take action, or believe the promises of the Hussein regime and hope he was being honest this time.

That, my friends, is as clear a choice as has ever taken place in the history of man. I don't know if you would be so quick to dismiss the weapons charges if the decision and responsibilty for that decision were on your shoulders.

man you guys believe the WMD thing so much you're willing to go to any stretch for it.

You're taking no less a leap of faith than those you would subtly deride as blindly stupid.

My belief: He had the weapons and the programs in place. He had 12 years to relocate them in whatever manner he saw fit while the UN issued condemnations and America, France, and Britain launched the occasional airstrike. In effect, "He had them, now they're somewhere else."

Your belief: The world was wrong all along. Saddam said he didn't have them and I believe that. The inspection process was working and should have been continued.

I'll come over to your side if you could please provide the date on which the UN made its declaration that Iraq didn't possess WMDs. What day was it that the inspections process was declared a success and Iraq was declared weapon-free. I only ask because that was a primary condition for cessation of sanctions. Please hook me up with that info, because I'm sure it would have made the news.

Now, prove the link between Saddam and Osama and I'll eat crow.

I neither believe that link to be the case nor do I feel compelled to argue with you in defense of it for one simple reason:

It's the 'War on Terror'.
Not the 'War on a Few Terrorists who are Hiding in a Cave Somewhere but not All Terrorists or even Most Terrorists....just a Few Terrorists'

Saddam was providing a sort of twisted insurance policy for the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Again, Google will bear this out. And just like that, Iraq becomes a state which sponsors terrorism. In the world of "with us or against us," Iraq fell into the latter category.

I'm beginning to believe that your positions on this topic spring directly from this:

I think I was twelve when the first one happened.

I was 18 and this was the war that my peers freaked out about being drafted into. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you didn't really follow world events too much prior to 2001, am I right? I only ask because it seems sometimes that you don't weigh the events of 1991 - 1999 too heavily in your conclusions about present day situations.

Also, how can you so easily dismiss all the evidence of the time that said Iraq did have them and jump into the no weapon group when the accusations of the other side still to this day haven't been disproved? They poured over a mountain range of evidence to reach their conclusions, what did you use to reach yours?

[Ferno]

Well you can't exactly start a war over someone denying your inspection team unrestricted access, right?

Your belief: The world was wrong all along. Saddam said he didn't have them and I believe that. The inspection process was working and should have been continued.

your off base on this. What i'm actually saying is the intelligence was flawed, not the whole world was wrong. Also, I won't discount Saddamn had them at one point in time, but not before the second gulf war. I'm not that stupid.

I'll come over to your side if you could please provide the date on which the UN made its declaration that Iraq didn't possess WMDs

I'm still working on this, but does the name Hans Blix ring a bell?


So if there was no WMD in Iraq, and no link to AQ.. what exactly are the troops doing there anyway?

[Pebkac]

Well you can't exactly start a war over someone denying your inspection team unrestricted access, right?

Perhaps not, but you *can* resume hostilities if those inspections were a condition of a ceace-fire agreement (which they were). ANY obstruction constitutes a breach of the agreement. Ceace-fire agreements are a pretty cut and dried arrangement. If North Korea were to cross the DMZ tomorrow, you'd probably see us "starting" a war there, too.

What i'm actually saying is the intelligence was flawed, not the whole world was wrong. Also, I won't discount Saddamn had them at one point in time, but not before the second gulf war. I'm not that stupid.

Once again, how do you know the intelligence was flawed? How can anyone know that for sure? The intelligence of the day says he has weapons. He says he doesn't, but he also will not allow anyone to have a full look. You can't prove conclusively that the intelligence was flawed. If they were flawed, I can only imagine the astronomical odds that were overcome to have so many come to the same wrong conclusions.

Since you concede the weapons were there at some point, where did they go? Did he hide them? Destroy them? Move them to another country? Once they were gone, why didn't Saddam allow the full inspection process that would have begun the process of removing sanctions? If he lets them look once the weps are gone, he pays a few reparations bills and is back in business. Why did he choose to lose his throne rather than face the inspections that would have been his salvation?

I'm still working on this, but does the name Hans Blix ring a bell?

Poor Hans. A day late and a dollar short. By the time he got in there, Iraq had had over a decade to do whatever they wanted. I look forward to the results of your search. I will go ahead and concede that the decision to invade Iraq was made on 9/12/01.

So if there was no WMD in Iraq, and no link to AQ.. what exactly are the troops doing there anyway?

Well, once again, we didn't know for sure they weren't there at decision time. And it isn't a war against AQ, it is a war on terror. Saddam was funding Palestinian suicide bombers (i.e. terrorists, i.e. the enemy).

Real quick.

1. Data says Iraq has weps.
2. Iraq says they don't have weps but also won't let anyone prove it.
3. WOT begins.
4. Chances good that if 1 is true, Iraq could provide those weps to bad people.
5. Given the above, the choice is to trust the data you have or trust the word of a man who makes the Spanish Inquisition look like a Barbara Walters special.
6. The logical choice of "trust the data" is made and now our troops are in Iraq, finally concluding a war that was allowed to go on for far too long.
7. WOT benefits because jihadists increase their attrition rates by flocking to Iraq like moths to flame.

If you really wanna get the blood boiling, think about the possiblity that Iraq isn't the last place we'll be visiting.

[Lothar]

Well you can't exactly start a war over someone denying your inspection team unrestricted access, right?

Perhaps not, but you *can* resume hostilities if those inspections were a condition of a ceace-fire agreement (which they were).

This needs repeated, more than once.

Saddam signed a cease-fire in 1991, and part of the terms of that were that he'd *prove* he disposed of his WMD stockpiles (which included allowing unrestricted access to inspectors.) So, even if intelligence had showed before the war that Saddam probably had gotten rid of his WMD's, if he couldn't prove it, the US and the rest of the 1991 countries were at liberty to invade. The burden of proof was *always* on him, and *never* on the US.

Also, recall that WMD was never the only justification for war. Every time Bush spoke of reasons for war, they included WMD, but also such things as Saddam's funding of Palestinian terrorists, his continuing to shoot at US planes in the no fly zones, his treatment of the Kurds, and on down the line.

I always viewed the WMD as the icing on the cake. Without the WMD evidence, there's still ample justification for invasion. Maybe there weren't WMD at all (thought it wouldn't surprise me if they're just hidden in Syria.) But who the heck cares?

The reason people hyped up the WMD angle so much is because a lot of countries simply wouldn't accept *any* justification for war, either because they were getting bling-bling from Saddam or because they simply want to oppose America. So, they siezed on the one piece of evidence that wasn't rock-solid (notice nobody ever denies the whole "shot at planes in the no-fly zones" thing) and debated endlessly about it, and hoped that would be enough. It wasn't, and that's a good thing.

[Ferno]

I'm kind of suprised the planes weren't told to shoot back. But no matter.

Since you concede the weapons were there at some point, where did they go? Did he hide them? Destroy them? Move them to another country?

My guess is he went into the sites that had them and told his gues to rip them apart. Then he decided to play a dangerous game of 'neener neener' by pretending he had a bunch of WMD. That backfired and the american army came screaming in. He wasn't exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer. His last words were probably 'Oh sh1t..'

I would have been in support of the war (as would the rest of Canada I'm guessing) is if Bush plainly said that the US jets were gettin shot up every time they went by, and that the kurds requested help. Stick to the irrefutable facts and I would have been on board.


Now I did some thinking on the matter, checked out an atlas for some material, and came up with a theroy. Now I'm probably gonna get shot to bits for this, but maybe another reason was that Isreal wanted an ally in the region to put more pressure on the Palestineans and other countries hostile to Isreal. Isreal goes in to Syria, and they can't retreat to Iraq because some of the American army is there.


I'm still trying to dig up what Hans said on the UN site. man they really need a new webmaster, because that place is like a maze.

[Will Robinson]

Now I did some thinking on the matter, checked out an atlas for some material, and came up with a theroy. Now I'm probably gonna get shot to bits for this, but maybe another reason was that Isreal wanted an ally in the region to put more pressure on the Palestineans and other countries hostile to Isreal. Isreal goes in to Syria, and they can't retreat to Iraq because some of the American army is there.

I think you have stumbled upon the obvious reason for the war but don't recognize it for what it is. Stop trying to find the conspiracy and just look at the face value of what you identified.

It's not some secret plan to let Israel take over the region. The same countries that want Israel destroyed are the source of most of the terrorists we face. Iraq was legally and politically vulnerable and a great strategic location to base our operations from...

Bush would have to have been an idiot to not take that advantage!

PS: We should have invaded Syria 20 years ago and finished this project before it started.

[Lothar]

I would have been in support of the war (as would the rest of Canada I'm guessing) is if Bush plainly said that the US jets were gettin shot up every time they went by, and that the kurds requested help. Stick to the irrefutable facts and I would have been on board.

Problem was, he said all that stuff -- EVERY SPEECH -- and people just ignored it. Bush made a mistake by letting them drag him into discussing WMD in depth, and he made a mistake by not saying over and over again "WMD are one of the many reasons to invade. But, many people also intentionally ignored the other reasons he consistantly gave.

maybe another reason was that Isreal wanted an ally in the region to put more pressure on the Palestineans and other countries hostile to Isreal.

Israel is strongly tied up in the whole war on terror thing, since they're the #1 target of terrorism in the world.

But don't go implying the war was because "Israel wanted an ally", as if Israel was the driving force behind it, and "the Jews" pulled strings in Washington. It's more like... if you're going to fight against terrorism, you have to fight against the governments that are most hostile to Israel.

[Ferno]

"But don't go implying the war was because "Israel wanted an ally", as if Israel was the driving force behind it, and "the Jews" pulled strings in Washington."

I have no idea where this came from, but I'm not implying that in any shape or form. I think the 'jews are taking over the world' thing is just as absurd as you do.

Also, I don't really buy the 'Isreal is a victim' in all of this. It's not like they were minding their own business and the PLO came along and started blowing stuff up. We all know Isreal started to push on Palestine beause Isreal believed they had a spiritual right to the land. I suppose in doing that they really pissed off the Palestineans.

I suppose if Bush avoided the whole WMD thing like the plauge, he wouldn't have been dragged into that huge mudpit in the first place.

[Lothar]

I suppose if Bush avoided the whole WMD thing like the plauge, he wouldn't have been dragged into that huge mudpit in the first place.

Agreed. I wish he'd known what an issue people would make of it.

It's not like they were minding their own business and the PLO came along and started blowing stuff up. We all know Isreal started to push on Palestine beause Isreal believed they had a spiritual right to the land.

If "we all know" something, we'd better hope it's true -- which that assertion is not.

We know that the Ottomans ruled the area up until the end of World War I, when the British took control. They ruled that area (called the Palestine Mandate) from 1917-1948 and made it a homeland for the Jews. They split it into two separate districts in 1946, one for Jews and one for Arabs. The district for Jews was called Palestine; the district for Arabs was called TransJordan. Palestine and TransJordan had the borders of the countries called "Israel" (1948) and "Jordan" (1949) on present day maps -- Palestine included Gaza and the West Bank (though not the Golan Heights.) When people talk about Palestine, they're not talking about the West Bank or Gaza, they're talking about the whole region including modern Israel.

The UN attempted to further partition Palestine into Jewish and Arab sections in 1947, giving most of the land to the Arabs, and giving the Jews almost all desert. The Jews accepted the plan, while the Arabs rejected it. The Arabs didn't want *any* Jewish state *at all*. The PLO charter says "The partition of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal."

The day the Jewish nation declared independance and called itself Israel, it was invaded by 5 countries -- Egypt, Syria, Transjordan, Lebanon and Iraq. At the end of this war, Israel had repulsed the invasion and held modern Israel, plus the Gaza strip (but not the Golan heights or the West Bank; Jordan occupied the West Bank.) The Arabs who remained in Israel were allowed to become full Israeli citizens, while those who fled to other nations were often forced to remain "refugees". They've been told that they will be allowed to return when Israel is destroyed -- when people talk about "right of return", this is what they're referring to.

Since then, Israel has been invaded several times, and repulsed each invasion. They also invaded their neighbors in 1967, launching pre-emptive strikes against the armies massed at their borders, and achieving victory through air superiority. This is when the "occupation" of the West Bank began.

Systematic terrorist attacks against Israel began in 1949, from a group that was called "Fedayeen". The PLO was formed in 1964, and Arafat became chairman in 1969. They've been blowing stuff up ever since. Their charter claims Palestine is Arab-only land, and what they mean by Palestine is the 1946 "Palestine" which encompassed modern Israel plus the West Bank and Gaza; this means no Israel whatsoever. Their charter also states that "Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine. This it is the overall strategy, not merely a tactical phase." The Oslo accords were supposed to bring peace to the region. Terrorist attacks continued, because, well, the PLO's stated purpose is to remove the nation of Israel through armed conflict.

Has Israel done some things that have led to increased attacks by the PLO and others? Probably. But the PLO's *founding principle* is to destroy Israel. Don't lose sight of that.

Did Israel start to push on Palestine because they believed they had a "spiritual right" to the land? No -- first of all, Israel *is* Palestine. There is no separate country called Palestine. Second, Israel did not push because they believed they had a "spiritual right"; they accepted the land they were given by the UN, and then siezed more when they were invaded and pushed the invading armies back. The "pissed off palestinians" are those who fled Israel in 1948 and were forced by their Arab brothers to live in refugee camps until the Arabs destroy Israel.

One of my pet peeves is the fact that most people are completely ignorant of the modern history of the Israeli-Arab conflict. They've bought into the BS that Israel is the aggressor, that Israel is the reason Arabs are living in refugee camps, that Israel attacked to take over their "spiritual homeland", etc. That's all BS. (I'm not saying Israel is innocent of wrongdoing against the Arab refugees -- I'm just saying they're clearly not the aggressors in this conflict, and that's a historically verifiable fact.)