The 45 minute WMD lie

DancesWithChimp

Did\Do you believe that the supposed threat was real?

Trebor

thought they might have had them but knew that they would never use them as if they did the entire country would have be obliterated.

DancesWithChimp

I always assumed that the Iraqi government retained possibly some bio-agents, though such things have very short life-spans, and TCPs(Toxic Chemical Precursors) and had them stored away somewhere and other such things, records, moulds and plans etc....however I never though any of it was actually weaponised, let alone deployed in theatre with the military, and let alone created for use against another nation.
You can't do that sort of thing without support from the world players and Iraq simply no longer had the kind of support for its use of WMD that it had in the past.

I was never convinced that an imminent threat was real and its disturbing that so many people were.
It was truely an exemplary success of propoganda.

:rolleyes:

Typedef

Everybody with a brain knew Iraq, didn't have any Chemical or Biological weapons or a credible means to deliver either if it did, by virtue of the fact.

If Saddam Hussein really had the means to inflict massive casualties on US troops or Israel, when the US was coming to overthrow him, don't you think he would have threatned to do so?

For example why doesn't the US invade North Korea? North Korea has nuclear weapons and importantly, no oil.

Though it has to be said, I didn't exactly shed tears when Saddam was overthrown, him, being a distasteful character and all.

It would have been preferable, if the Americans had sponsored overthrow of the Iraqi government, by internal elements, but, I suppose there is no percentage for the US, in such a move.

Beruthiel

For example why doesn't the US invade North Korea?

exactly
why haven't they invaded, NK is a much bigger threat..
If (and I always doubted it) Iraq had ever such weapons, and was as dangerous as Bush made him out to be, how come the Americans weren’t blown to bits as they entered Bagdad?

k

Come to think of it, where is Saddam? Does he exist or was he part of a US plot too?

They shoud hire Mr Blix, no doubt he would find him in a couple of days.

DancesWithChimp

Personally I'm not too enthusiastic about the idea of the US invading North Korea but the critical comparison is valid.
Regardless, it is obvious that Iraq was not attacked for reasons of either threats from unconventional weaponary or for the cause of furthering "world peace", and hence it is apparent the decision to attack and occupy was made long before the WMD topic hit the news late last summer.

For whatever the reasons, official or otherwise, the subsequent killing of thousands of people and the increased suffering of hunreds of thousands of people is a desperate tradgedy, unnecessarily inflicted on an already desperately suffering people.

That said, good riddance to Mr. Hussein.

Cork

Did\Do you believe that the supposed threat was real?

Yes - I did believe Saddam had WMD - he was not afraid to use them.

Do you believe that the supposed threat was real?

Yes. Saddam was a threat to his own people.

hallelujajordan

It was interesting to hear Colin Powell on the radio this morning say that he had no doubt that had the sanctions been lifted on Iraq, SH would have made every effort to develop his WMD program. . . and Rumsfeld saying..."The coalition did not act in Iraq because we had discovered dramatic new evidence of Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction "

This is a far cry from what we were told before the war and its time time the world community started to make the "coalition#2 accountable for its actions . . .

Lemming

Originally posted by Cork
Yes - I did believe Saddam had WMD - he was not afraid to use them.

But Rumsie baby just 'fessed up that there were no new developments and that they were, in fact, merely "concerned" that any weapons *might* fall into the hands of the "wrong people".

Check the beeb website. I'm not posting the link for you since it's lunch time and I'm running out the door ...

Yes. Saddam was a threat to his own people.

The same way that Bush is a threat to his people since he's neglecting the economy & playing dodgy russian roulette with it, sending his country's youth off to hostile situations to die for nothing more than feeble excuses and is, far from making his country safer, only flaming the fans of hatred further towards it.

You don't have to torture your people to be a danger to them .....

hallelujajordan

Originally posted by Cork
Yes - I did believe Saddam had WMD - he was not afraid to use them.

Ah yes . . . and you base this belief on what exactly . . . . .?

Typedef

This is a far cry from what we were told before the war and its time time the world community started to make the "coalition#2 accountable for its actions .

How does one make the coalition accountable, when it basically broke international law, by invading Iraq?

Who do you propose enforces such a sanction... umm... let's see... the US.... maybe?

Hmm, interesting.

DancesWithChimp

Originally posted by Cork
Yes - I did believe Saddam had WMD - he was not afraid to use them.

Like I said, he had support in the past for his use of WMD against Iran and the Kurds, so therefore you are right, he was not afraid to use them. That was over 10 years ago.
Today the reality is different and your agument cannot be applied.
He no longer had the support of western governments for development and use of WMDs so he lost all incentive to develop or use them.
If he wasn't afraid to use them as you say, then why didn't he?
Answer that without contradicting yourself, and there will be a gold star for you.

Originally posted by Cork
Yes. Saddam was a threat to his own people.

There are many governments and leader who threaten their own people. And like those countries the only people who had to fear Saddam were his political\idealogical domestic opponents.
This initimidation is wrong and intolerable but it does not call for invasion and occupation, unless you are arguing that for most of the developing world...are you?

Cork

There are many governments and leader who threaten their own people. And like those countries the only people who had to fear Saddam were his political\idealogical domestic opponents.

I agree. The ordinay Iraqi had to tolerate Saddam.

Did\Do you believe that the supposed threat was real?

In my openion there was a threat. There are indeed many brutal dictaors in the world. I know Bush has his failings.But there is now a job of work to stabilise & democratise Iraq.

Lemming

Originally posted by Cork

But there is now a job of work to stabilise & democratise Iraq.

here's a question for you ......

what if the Iraqi people decide that they want to become a religiously inclined state like, say, Iran ???

Yourself and others keep making overtures of "democractising" as if it the Iraqi people are to be TOLD that they are to have this, which would defeate the purpose & spirit of democracy in the first place.

Sparks

Cork,I have to admit that your beliefs are unsurprising, given the unswerving faith you displayed towards Ahern's honesty in that thread in the face of documentary evidence to the contrary. That said,

But there is now a job of work to stabilise & democratise Iraq.

Is in direct contradiction to the recent cancelling of elections to local civil authorities across Iraq by the US military who then appointed their own candidates to the jobs being contested - usually ex-Iraqi military personnel.
So basically, they've reappointed the men that were terrorising Iraqis in the first place.
Shades of Afghanistan...
And you know what's happening there with the Taliban, don't you?

I said it before the war on another board, they're going to appoint another dictator who's sympathetic to US interests and turn a blind eye to the resulting human rights violations and atrocities.
Saddam is dead, long live saddam...

bonkey

Originally posted by Cork
Yes - I did believe Saddam had WMD - he was not afraid to use them.

So why didnt he use them???

You believe he had them, and the will to use them, and given that we're talking about the "45-minute WMDs" he had plenty of time to decide to use them....

So...seriously....why didn't he use them?

Yes. Saddam was a threat to his own people.

In what way?

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by Lemming
here's a question for you ......

what if the Iraqi people decide that they want to become a religiously inclined state like, say, Iran ???

Can't happen.

See, for the Iraqi people to validly[ make a choice like that, they'd have to do so democratically. So even if they don't want democracy, they have to have it in order to choose anything else.

Unfortunately, once they have it, any party which is preaching an end of democracy will be proscribed, membership and representation made illegal, etc.

So, as a result, the only way such a decision could be made would be via a coup against the democratic system - which would clearly be illegal, and require a response, such as troops coming back to "protect" the democracy that they had helped create.

Western "freedom of choice" is really a polite way of saying "freedom to choose amongst the options we decide are available to you".

jc

Cork

Originally posted by bonkey
So why didnt he use them???

You believe he had them, and the will to use them, and given that we're talking about the "45-minute WMDs" he had plenty of time to decide to use them....

So...seriously....why didn't he use them?



In what way?

jc

Bonkey. Both the US and British intelligence organisations have serious questions to answer with regards to the information they were in receipt of. Both the US and British governments relied on this information.

I think that there are many questions to be answered surronding the war. I personally have not the answers . I think the UN needs reform.

I really don't know of Saddams weapons programme. I really don't of what weapons he had or had not.

Saddam would have been a threat to the people of Northern Iraq only for the No Fly Zone. The US army not have found WMD but mass garves were found. I know that the US & UK went into Iraq on the basis of WMD. But Saddam is no loss.

Sparks

So Cork,
What does what you posted have to do with the question then?

Victor

I was always highly sceptical about it. It is perfectly possible to have a reaction time of 45 minutes, but it would appears they didn't have the weapons or the will.

DancesWithChimp

Originally posted by Cork

Saddam would have been a threat to the people of Northern Iraq only for the No Fly Zone. The US army not have found WMD but mass garves were found. I know that the US & UK went into Iraq on the basis of WMD.

Why do you comment on things you have very limited knowledge of?

The no-fly zones were illegal and only limited Iraqi planes from using them. Turkish planes often flew missions into the Northern no-fly zone of Iraq and attacked the Kurdish civillian population and destroyed many Kurdish villages, British pilots have testified to this...hence they could not reasonably be described as being there for the protection of people in Northern Iraq. They were merely another method, along with sanctions and the southern no-fly zone of damaging Iraq beyond reason...mainly damaging civillians and their infrastructure.
Saddam was rarely touch by sanctions\no-fly zones, yet they lasted 12 years.

The mass graves were not the reason for and neither are they any kind of new revelation, or in hindsight, new justification.
The people slaughtered in those graves were killed while US forces were in control of the area, after they had reppelled Saddam's forces from Kuwait, and Schwarzkopf authorised Saddams armed forces to use helicopter gunships on the uprising population while denying the rebels, who we now apparently support(not really though), from gaining access to captured Iraqi arms. The US\UK are complicit with Saddam in much of these ghastly crimes, and have admitted this was necessary to "maintain stability".

So you say you don't know if he had weapons or not?
But in an earlier post you say he did have them and wasn't afraid to use them.
And then you discount the relevancy of these weapons with regard to justification for war, while earlier implying this was justification.
Tony Blair seems to have the same problem...

Originally posted by DancesWithChimp
Did\Do you believe that the supposed threat was real?

There was a threat there yes, but one that could have easily been contained without a war.
Saddam's regime would still be there without that war,which would not be good, but that provides little solace when one thinks that, no action is being taken with other equally despotic regimes. It's very clear that ridding Iraq of WMD's, Saddam and furthering U.S economic interests were the three primary goals of the whole campaign though.
Their rank in order of importance, to Bush , definitely being in the reverse order of which I've listed them.
Mind you, those motives were there for many other countries too as we all know, except they do not have the might to counter balance the influence of the worlds only super power.
Europe never will , given that two of it's largest Economies, currently are engaged in childish tit for tat insults and GB is well... so sceptical of Europe as to be more naturally alligned to the U.S anyway.
mm

Cork

Originally posted by Man
There was a threat there yes, but one that could have easily been contained without a war.
mm

Resolution 1441 - was the justification for war. No weapons were found. Therefore seeminly - there was no justification.

He recently received 100% of the popular vote in a ballot. I don't think the Iraqi people were about to topple him as opposition to him were living in exile.

Saddam being toppled is a positive side effect of the invasion. Not withstanding Resolution 1441 - was the stated justification for war & no WMD have been found.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Cork
Saddam being toppled is a positive side effect of the invasion.

An altruistic by-product of invasion? Cool.

Then what was the purpose of the invasion if removing Saddam was a side effect, Cork?

Originally posted by Cork
Resolution 1441 - was the justification for war.

Thats not strictly correct Cork.
That resolution threatened consequenses if the Sadam government did not co-operate suffeciently with Hans Blix et al.

Co-operation did improve markedly prior to the outbreak of war, suffecient enough in the eyes of Blix not to merit the war.
As Blix was the head of one of the agencies, with whom Iraq would have to co-operate to avoid consequences, then I don't see how 1441 could have sanctioned War.

War was however sanctioned by the U.S,the U.K, and Australia,but not by the UNSC,as you may remember , efforts to have a second resolution specifically demanding action had to be withdrawn for lack of support.

The action was in effect mainly unilateral.
Having said that,it did have one main beneficial effect, it overthrew a brutal regime.
But it also did nothing to disprove the theory that the U.S under Bush will only use the overthrow of despotic regimes as an excuse, to further their economic interests.
That theory would only be disproved if they activel went about the creation of proper freedom and democracy in places like Zimbabwe etc.
Now do you understand cork??
mm

Cork

I completely agree with your post. I think it sums up a lot.

Moonpig

as much as Nazi germany had no right to invade poland, America had no right or justification to invade Iraq and any plans to enter another soverign state, should be viewed with great sceptisism