No weapons of Mass destruction

Hobbes

On the news at the moment, The US inspections teams have reported it.

The best they could find is Saddam was "planning", and the spin is already on.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

but it was about regime change, not weapons of mass destruction

who mentioned weapons of mass desctruction?

A Dub in Glasgo

Tell us something the world did not know

The world also knows that there are numerous countries with Weapons of Mass Destruction and only one country ever used the real weapon of mass destruction

Hobbes

I know its obvious to us but the US sent these people in because they said the UN was useless and being tricked.

Fudger

No WMD but lots of OIL................. yeeeee haaaawwww

100gSoma

All your base are belong to US(A)





http://www.allyourbasearebelongtous.com/

ReefBreak

Isn't anyone in this cosy consensus thread worried about the fact that the report also confirmed one very important point:
Saddam had been waiting for the end of UN sanctions to start re-building WMDs, and had managed to placate (i.e. hoodwink) the UN enough that he thought sanctions would end soon.

egan007

ReefBreak wrote:

Isn't anyone in this cosy consensus thread worried about the fact that the report also confirmed one very important point:
Saddam had been waiting for the end of UN sanctions to start re-building WMDs, and had managed to placate (i.e. hoodwink) the UN enough that he thought sanctions would end soon.

Surely the proper procedure then is to reimpose stricter sanctions and not to obliterate a country

ferdi

"Oh say can you see...

The WMD?...no.

ReefBreak

egan007 wrote:

Surely the proper procedure then is to reimpose stricter sanctions and not to obliterate a country

It was sanctions that made Saddam even more powerful. It was also sanctions that made him very rich, as it made certain UN officials very rich. Just like we know now there were no WMDs, we also know the true reality about effect of sanctions. The anti-war people are so engrossed in the no-WMD story, they hate to look at the other side.

ReefBreak

In fact yesterday's report proved three things:
1. There were no WMDs
2. Sanctions were not working. They were actually only working in Saddam's favour.
and 3. Saddam had every intention of re-starting his WMD program.

I don't expect the hordes of people blinded by left-wing ideology to bother letting points 2 & 3 even enter their heads.

egan007

ReefBreak wrote:

It was sanctions that made Saddam even more powerful..

I'm sorry but this is hearsay, how could sanctions make hime more proweful than the weapons that the US gave him?

ReefBreak wrote:

It was also sanctions that made him very rich, as it made certain UN officials very rich. .

This is true the process was very corrupt - again this is what need to be looked at in this case rather than the last resort - i.e. a war.

ReefBreak wrote:

Just like we know now there were no WMDs,
.

The only reason we now know that there were definately no WMD's is because the UN weapons inspectors were given the time to finally complete their report.

ReefBreak wrote:

The anti-war people are so engrossed in the no-WMD story, they hate to look at the other side.

So he was 'intending' to make weapons - I dont' see the US invading Iran / N Korea / Uk / France - all of which have made their intentions clear that they are going to make nuclear weapons

PH01

ReefBreak wrote:

Isn't anyone in this cosy consensus thread worried about the fact that the report also confirmed one very important point:
Saddam had been waiting for the end of UN sanctions to start re-building WMDs, and had managed to placate (i.e. hoodwink) the UN enough that he thought sanctions would end soon.

Not worried but it's a valid point you make.
I don't think there is any doubt old Saddam wanted WMD with sanctions or without. Whether he was able to accuire them is another question. And at the end of the day the UN could have impossed a resolution to lift the sanctions on Iraq if the regime didn't persue WMD in the future - which could have been policed by UN weapons inspectors.
Every power in the world needs weapons to stay. And nations which have the resources are going to want WMD. I think that's a given.

Boggle

The WMD story was a cover for the invasion. Its obvious. Bush had a stated objective coming into office of removing hussein. 911 and WMD were just convenient excuses to go in....

...not saying that he should have been allowed to stay in power but there are actually worse countries in the world that should be sorted first. (maybe not to many with oil though)

seamus

ReefBreak wrote:

3. Saddam had every intention of re-starting his WMD program.

God that's nice and convenient isn't it? "Jaysus lads, you're lucky we went in when we did, or he would have eventually blown us all to kingdom come. I think we should get more oil for saving your leftie hides and doing the right thing."

Fact of the matter is Reefbreak, that's no excuse. The fact that Saddam had WOMD was the reason for the war, and they didn't exist. They lied to go to war, they lied to get other countries' backing, and they continue to lie about their reasons after the war.

Regardless of his eventual intentions, you cannot start a war, killing thousands, on the back of lies and twisted intelligence. That bumbling incompetence and exploitation of the American people may have saved people from Saddam eventually restarting his weapons programme does not excuse what was done.

If you murder someone, and after the fact find out that he was planning a crime, that doesn't exonerate you from murder.

Had they produced evidence that Saddam was hindering the inspectors with the intention of rearming and starting a war, they would have gotten UN backing. They didn't. They lied. The war is illegal, and in control of the Americans, is a disaster.

You cannot avoid the facts.

Hobbes

ReefBreak wrote:

2. Sanctions were not working. They were actually only working in Saddam's favour.

I didn't see that anywhere? can you point out exactly where it said that.

If anything it showed that Sanctions were working quite well.

and 3. Saddam had every intention of re-starting his WMD program.

IF SANCTIONS WERE STOPPED. Big difference.

I don't expect the hordes of people blinded by left-wing ideology to bother letting points 2 & 3 even enter their heads.

The report mentioned that he had nothing since 1991, Sanctions were stopping him from getting anything, and there was never any plan to use the weapons (if aquired) against the US nor hand them over to terrorists.

The big railroad chemical plants that was spouted in the UN never existed as well.

You can read the key points of the report here.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3722016.stm

But as I said if you think you are right please link your sources.

If anything the report shows that over 1000 US soliders died for no reason.

[edit] Full report is here..

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/index.html

Corega

I apologise if this seems a rather naive statement, slap the bad karma on if it is But surely from the onset of this war it was obvious that Saddam had none of these weapons. Unless he was mashed or something Saddam must have realised that the U.S. were going to do exactly what they were saying and remove him, so why wouldn't a man who has used chemical agents to kill over 300,000 (is that the right figure?) Kurd's, use them on the invading coalition forces? He's always struck me as a decisive person if anything else.

seamus

Corega wrote:

I apologise if this seems a rather naive statement, slap the bad karma on if it is But surely from the onset of this war it was obvious that Saddam had none of these weapons. Unless he was mashed or something Saddam must have realised that the U.S. were going to do exactly what they were saying and remove him, so why wouldn't a man who has used chemical agents to kill over 300,000 (is that the right figure?) Kurd's, use them on the invading coalition forces? He's always struck me as a decisive person if anything else.

Of course. The Governments tried to make it appear as if he had weapons (anyone remember reporters being told to suit up urgently every 10 minutes during the first few days?), but it was plainly obvious to the entire world 2 days into the war - if he had the weapons he would have used them already. Some people just refused to see what was staring them in the face.

Hobbes

Hobbes wrote:

I didn't see that anywhere? can you point out exactly where it said that.

If anything it showed that Sanctions were working quite well.

I think reefbreak might have been referring to the other effects of the sanctions, ie making Sadam rich and making his people miserable ie the corrupt side effects of the sanctions.
The sanctions did do a good job in combination with the inspections(when they were allowed) of limiting /stopping his wmd programme.

seamus wrote:

Fact of the matter is Reefbreak, that's no excuse. The fact that Saddam had WOMD was the reason for the war, and they didn't exist. They lied to go to war, they lied to get other countries' backing, and they continue to lie about their reasons after the war.

I've no doubt about that now,however I'll give you a caveat.
Saddam knew there were no wmd, he of all people knew yet he continued to bluster in the hope that the whole run up to the war and the position of the U.S and the U.K would blow up in their faces(pardon the pun) had as I think Saddam probably expected the weapons inspectors been given enough time to discover there were none.

What he would have done after that when given the all clear is anybodies guess but mine would be to hazzard that malice would be in his mind somewhere.

Thats not a justification for the war but given that Saddam was no stranger to killing and many of his sympathisers make up a large proportion of the insurgents now killing many Iraqi's at will-it is a perspective

100gSoma

look. the US fcuked up large. The region is mor eunstable now and there is bloodbath every day in Iraq in numerous cities. They destroyed a country.
idiots.

Nuttzz

Did Iraq not have WMD at some stage, I'm nearly sure that they were used in the Iran/Iraq War and against the kurds, perhaps the stocks were destoryed in 91 and were never there since come to think of it they probably used intelligence gathered in 1991....

A Dub in Glasgo

Saddam gassed a Kurdish village in Northern Iraq in the late '80s.

A lot of countries have Weapons of Mass Destruction or can get them if they wished

100gSoma

the memory of the war for me is of a 9 year old boy chasing a half chared body still smouldering along a street chained to the back of a toyota pickup. Thebody was that of a US security contractor and it was cmouldering away like black/red cooked BBQ. The kid chased it and hit it with his sandel while shouting slogans. a 9 year old! these people are fcuking savages. And if they threathen my way of life, fcuk them.

I saw in the paper the next day a picture of this man (the cooked man) with his wife and two yuong daughters on a holiday. made me sick to see it. They hung hung his charred bod up off a bridge. The image is one I could never describe, it was sickening. didn;t resemble a man at all, just a mass of cooked meat with limbs and a crushed head.

this was through their streets they dragge dhim, cheering and laughing with their little kids running behind? you wouldn;t see it in the west. why? cause we a re fundamentally different. these people live in the stone age.

A Dub in Glasgo

100gSoma wrote:

the memory of the war for me is of a 9 year old boy chasing a half chared body still smouldering along a street chained to the back of a toyota pickup. Thebody was that of a US security contractor and it was cmouldering away like black/red cooked BBQ. The kid chased it and hit it with his sandel while shouting slogans. a 9 year old! these people are fcuking savages. And if they threathen my way of life, fcuk them.

I saw in the paper the next day a picture of this man (the cooked man) with his wife and two yuong daughters on a holiday. made me sick to see it. They hung hung his charred bod up off a bridge. The image is one I could never describe, it was sickening. didn;t resemble a man at all, just a mass of cooked meat with limbs and a crushed head.

this was through their streets they dragge dhim, cheering and laughing with their little kids running behind? you wouldn;t see it in the west. why? cause we a re fundamentally different. these people live in the stone age.

As we (the west) press a button from 2 miles up that will blow everything to smithereens including children. Look beyond the media painted war. It is estimated that 10,000 civilian men, woman and children have beed killed by the US & the UK. Nope we are not savages then :rolleyes:

The whole region is totally messed up and this 'war' has added plenty of fuel to it.

Sand

It is estimated that 10,000 civilian men, woman and children have beed killed by the US & the UK. Nope we are not savages then

Relatively minor when you consider the UN reported that its sanctions were killing 4500 iraqi children every month, prior to the war. 4,500 kids every month, for.....13 years....thats like 700,000 kids. Thats not counting adults. And the catch 22 is that the sanctions were preventing Saddam from rebuilding his WMD program. Remove the sanctions to save the children and Saddam gets his nukes again. Leave them in and youre killing children, but as you said....

As we (the west) press a button from 2 miles up that will blow everything to smithereens including children. Look beyond the media painted war.

700 thousand children killed by sanctions dont seem quite as savage to us when theres some distance between the us and the victims. Not as savage as an estimated 10,000 dead killed in Iraq anyway.

naitkris

George W. Bush cannot get re-elected based on these findings (should be thrown out of office right now if you ask me) - if he does get re-elected, well i say no more... other than thank goodness I am not living in the U.S.A if he does get re-elected.

DadaKopf

ReefBreak wrote:

Something about people being blinded by left-wing ideology won't accept that sanctions weren't working and Saddam intended to re-arm.

For what the left-right thing is worth, I'd consider myself aligned to the left and think I had a fairly decent view of the situation from the beginning which would concede your points.

1.
UN/US sanctions weakened Saddam's military capability and Saddam was using sanctions to strengthen his political position in Iraq, and both sides were responsible for the suffering and deaths it was causing. But it was also probably likely that had sanctions been lifted, Saddam would have tried to build up his weapons systems.

2.
Therefore, Saddam never had any WMD's. He had a WMD programme, but that programme was called 'weapons of mass deception'. He attempted to strengthen his bargaining position by creating in the minds of inspectors and politicians the possibility that he might have weapons, somewhere. This doesn't excuse the US and UK governments and intelligence services from the fact that they had no hard evidence either way. If they had hard evidence, they'd have known, as the 'Left' seemed to, that he had no weapons. Instead, the US and UK transmogrified a 'maybe' at best into a dead cert, dangerously relying on the partisan Iraqi National Congress for intelligence.

In the end we're left with two things: (1) Saddam was an evil magician, and (2) on the basis of dubious 'evidence' the US and the UK went to war against a militarily weak regime and vulnerable population to secure their strategic interests.

Whatever picture some conservative SWP types might conjure, I like to think most, er, right-thinking people figured the situation from the start.

Hobbes

Sand wrote:

Relatively minor when you consider the UN reported that its sanctions were killing 4500 iraqi children every month, prior to the war.

Amazing how they manage to kill to the number 4500. If it is 2498 one month do they have to work overtime?

http://reason.com/0203/fe.mw.the.shtml

The idea that sanctions in Iraq have killed half a million children (or 1 million, or 1.5 million, depending on the hysteria of the source) took root in 1995 and 1996, on the basis of two transparently flawed studies, one inexplicable doubling of the studies’ statistics, and a non-denial on 60 Minutes.

More on that page but basically the actual report of 5,000 (or more depending on the source) was generated by none other then the Iraq minstry of health. And who controls that? Yep you guessed it. Saddam. He wanted sanctions stopped and the best way to do this was to show how all the poor children were dying from it.

Now there were certainly food issues with children which is why the Oil for food programme was introduced. But the deaths were certainly not at the level given by Saddam. Current figures suggest 1 in 10 child does not make it passed the age of 5 in Iraq.

Even the liberals stopped spouting that mantra when it was found out.