quote:The government's most definitive account of Iraq's arms programs, to be released today, will show that Saddam Hussein posed a diminishing threat at the time the United States invaded and did not possess, or have concrete plans to develop, nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, U.S. officials said yesterday.
The officials said that the 1,000-page report by Charles A. Duelfer, the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq, concluded that Hussein had the desire but not the means to produce unconventional weapons that could threaten his neighbors or the West. President Bush has continued to assert in his campaign stump speech that Iraq had posed "a gathering threat."
The officials said Duelfer, an experienced former United Nations weapons inspector, found that the state of Hussein's weapons-development programs and knowledge base was less advanced in 2003, when the war began, than it was in 1998, when international inspectors left Iraq.
"They have not found anything yet," said one U.S. official who had been briefed on the report.
A senior U.S. government official said that the report includes comments Hussein made to debriefers after his capture that bolster administration assertions, including his statement that his past possession of weapons of mass destruction "was one of the reasons he had survived so long." He also maintained such weapons saved his government by halting Iranian ground offensives during the Iran-Iraq war and deterred coalition forces from pressing on to Baghdad during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, the official said.
The official also said that Duelfer's Iraq Survey Group had uncovered Iraqi plans for ballistic missiles with ranges from 400 to 1,000 kilometers and for a 1,000-kilometer-range cruise missile, farther than the 150-kilometer range permitted by the United Nations, the senior official said.
The official said Duelfer will tell Congress in the report and in testimony today that Hussein intended to reconstitute weapons of mass destruction programs if he were freed of the U.N. sanctions that prevented him from getting needed materials.
Duelfer's report said Hussein was pursuing an aggressive effort to subvert the international sanctions through illegal financing and procurement efforts, officials said. The official said the report states that Hussein had the intent to resume full-scale weapons of mass destruction efforts after the sanctions were eliminated, and details Hussein's efforts to hinder international inspectors and preserve his weapons of mass destruction capabilities.
In short, our own investigation shows that Saddam was trying to get WMDs, yet U.N. sanctions alone (even without weapons inspectors) not only stopped his progress, but actually succeeded in causing a regress in Iraq's weapons programs. Saddam was getting weaker by the year.
So, how can we still maintain the argument that U.N. sanctions were ineffective against Iraq? It seems to me that this proves that not only were the effective in preventing the advancement of his programs, but also that if they had continued to be in place, Saddam's weapons programs would have continued to weaken and he would have become less of a threat - not more of a threat.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
It's nice to have information available now that we invaded the country that we didn't have then.
That's why hindsight is always 20/20.
Would've been nice had he never kicked the inspectors out or that Clinton had done something more than the "more of the same" year over year.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
No, it would have been nice had Bush not assumed "more of the same" had failed before letting the inspectors finish their job. Then we might have known "more of the same" was working before deciding to launch an invasion.
[ October 06, 2004, 11:19 AM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Also, Libya is proof that Sanctions coupled with Military use is also effective.
People tend to think twice at flipping their noses at you when you actually follow through on your threats.
It's like a gang of hoodlums provoking and proding someone who warns them to back off but does nothing, but then finally goes off and literally kicks the @ss of one of the hoodlums.
You get a pack of hoodlums less likely to provoke and prod and more apt to hearing your warnings and threats of reprisal.
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
If Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction, it would have been a whole lot simpler for him to simply allow the U.N. to see and verify that fact. The only reason everyone continued to believe he had them was that he kept playing stupid little games, which now seem calculated to make us believe he had them. Think about it:
1. Saddam had possessed and used such weapons in the past.
2. Saddam agreed to get rid of all such weapons.
3. When the U.N. attempted to verify his compliance, Saddam refused to cooperate, making it impossible for anyone to discover that he had in fact gotten rid of them, and leading everyone to believe that he really did have something to hide.
I certainly can't blame anyone for continuing to believe Saddam had WMD's, or for acting on that belief when Saddam persisted in antagonizing the entire rest of the world.
[ October 06, 2004, 11:28 AM: Message edited by: UofUlawguy ]
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: No, it would have been nice had Bush not assumed "more of the same" had failed before letting the inspectors finish their job. Then we might have known "more of the same" was working before deciding to launch an invasion.
I think 10 years was plenty of time. Also we don't know if Sadaam would have allowed the inspectors to remain. If his past treatment of the inspections was any indication (and I don't think in my opinion you can ignore it) we can't say that inspections would have worked because we can't assume they wouldn't have been kicked out again.
And that still leaves Sadaam in power which the report says he had the desire to aquire WMD's.
quote:A senior U.S. government official said that the report ,includes comments Hussein made to debriefers after his capture that bolster administration assertions, including his statement that his past possession of weapons of mass destruction "was one of the reasons he had survived so long." He also maintained such weapons saved his government by halting Iranian ground offensives during the Iran-Iraq war and deterred coalition forces from pressing on to Baghdad during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, the official said.
The official also said that Duelfer's Iraq Survey Group had uncovered Iraqi plans for ballistic missiles with ranges from 400 to 1,000 kilometers and for a 1,000-kilometer-range cruise missile, farther than the 150-kilometer range permitted by the United Nations, the senior official said.
The official said Duelfer will tell Congress in the report and in testimony today that Hussein intended to reconstitute weapons of mass destruction programs if he were freed of the U.N. sanctions that prevented him from getting needed materials.
Emphasis added that you didn't add.
So let's play devil's advocate. If the weapons inspectors found he had no WMD's then that means we would have to justify sanctions against him, which would have been hard to do at best. So then we have to drop our sanctions, which then allows him to restart his weapons programs as he planned....
There's alot more in that story than you emphasized.
It will be interesting to see what his testimony reveals.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:I think 10 years was plenty of time.
They had only returned for months when Bush attacked.
quote:If the weapons inspectors found he had no WMD's then that means we would have to justify sanctions against him, which would have been hard to do at best. So then we have to drop our sanctions, which then allows him to restart his weapons programs as he planned....
Okay, so you're saying a WAR is justified even without any WMD's, but mere sanctions would not have been?
The sanctions did not exist because Saddam had WMDs. They existed because he invaded another country.
quote:There's alot more in that story than you emphasized.
Yes, but it all amounts to what I said. Everything you quoted is about how Saddam wanted WMDs, which is clear. The fact that he wanted it so badly yet still could not get it because of U.N. sanctions, is what proves so clearly that U.N. sanctions work.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
It's unsurprising that Saddam wanted people to think he had WMD. It's similar to N. Korea's concerns at being over-powered by other nations. It's the only way to assert power as a small country, in their eyes.
Our incompetence in intelligence and lying about intelligence is not sufficient to go to war, however. With another however, is that we're there now and we NEED to do things right. Which I don't think we're doing (see electricity, water supplies, and general instability remaining in the region). I'm not going to protest about more or less troops getting sent to Iraq. But I am going to call our administration liars and fools.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: The sanctions did not exist because Saddam had WMDs. They existed because he invaded another country.
To clarify the sanctions were placed on his country because of his invasion, but remained after his withdrawl from foreign soil because they were contingent upon his disarming of his weapons programs. It is very clear in the UN resolutions what the conditions were for having those sanctions removed. It was even argued by Tariq Aziz before the UN security council and the answer was that for sanctions to be lifted he would have to disarm.
Now if we find out that he was indeed "disarmed" and had no Weapons programs or WMD's, then what happens to the sanctions? You have to remove them. And as your report stated, once that happens, the barrier stopping him from getting WMD's is now gone and he would be actively persuing acquiring and developing them.
I realize that this is as assumptive as believing that continued inspections would actually have worked.
But there it is.
[ October 06, 2004, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: CStroman ]
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Either President Bush knew that WMD were not existant in Iraq, but used that as an excuse to invade (not for oil, but to promote the neo-con theory that a democracy in Iraq will bring peace to the region), or he was fooled, completely, by a two bit dictator.
Saddam wanted President Bush to believe he had WMD so he could negotiate better terms. He played the US and the UN and a dozen other countries like fiddles at the country fair.
Unfortunately he got caught up in his own lies and played his hand just a bit too far.
He bluffed.
We believed his bluff, at a great price.
A price he didn't think we would pay.
Because American's don't bluff with war.
I am of the opinion that President Bush was fooled, but others in his cabinet were aware of the possibility that the WMD didn't exist, but were willing to gamble with soldiers lives in order to try their little experiment in nation building.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: (see electricity, water supplies, and general instability remaining in the region).
I would put forth that that is exactly what we are doing over there.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: Either President Bush knew that WMD were not existant in Iraq, but used that as an excuse to invade
Which is one of the funniest conspiracy theories I have heard in modern times.
quote: or he was fooled, completely, by a two bit dictator.
Him or the combined intelligence committees of the entire developed world? France, Germany, GB, and the US included?
That is the third option which you didn't include and which is the truth according to all investigations done thus far.
quote: But I am going to call our administration liars and fools.
And that is your right and opinion.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
The report also mentions (hey, this wasn't in your quotes, Tres) that the Iraqi's use of chemical weapons was much more extensive than previously thought.
So . . . where did all those weapons go?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
What is that third option?
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
That the intelligence committees of the developed world with the Iraq frequency tuned in believed he had WMD's. It wasn't the President who was duped by Sadaam. It was the intelligence committees.
Place the blame where it in fact lies, which is with the Intelligence Committees that had wrong information.
Example: Mutliple Doctors diagnose you with terminal cancer, so you submit yourself to Kemo. After a year, it is learned you actually don't have cancer. Whose fault is it? Yours for acting on the information you were given? Or those who are paid to provide you with reliable information but failed. Remember "Multiple" Doctors said you had it.
It's a no brainer.
[ October 06, 2004, 12:26 PM: Message edited by: CStroman ]
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
So what's your opinion about the aluminum tubes? Or that idiotic memo that was forged and rather blatantly so?
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
You mean the "flawed" intelligence reports? I think they were flawed. Is that was you are asking?
Could you be a little bit more specific so I know what opinion of mine you are seeking for?
Thank ye kindly. Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
fugu wrote a long and pertinent post about this in Kasie H's thread here about 1/3 of the way down the page. The NYT link is here.
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
quote:Example: Mutliple Doctors diagnose you with terminal cancer, so you submit yourself to Kemo.
Coming this Fall to a Casino Near You.... Kemo! "It's Cancer Treatment, Vegas-Style!"
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Duelfer said yesterday that while Sadaam had no nuclear capabilities, his findings showed that he was actively working toward getting them.
He also explained that many of the chemical weapons Iraq had possession of during the Gulf War had been destroyed, but the facilities for the production of the weapons had not, and Sadaam was implementing the research and development of chemical weapons inspite of sanctions against Iraq. Ditto with biological weapons.
Duelfer said at least three times that sanctions on Iraq were eroding, and that Sadaam had every intention of reinitiating active development of nuclear, chemical, and biological weaponry as soon as he could get away with it.
Sanctions, in other words, were not working.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Would've been nice had he never kicked the inspectors out or that Clinton had done something more than the "more of the same" year over year.
Wow....it looks like Bush's speech got stuck in someones head....
Despite being written by a dyslexic 5 th grader...
The sanctions worked, or we would have found the weapons...that is the point.
"More of the same" might not have continued to work in the future, but it had worked up to this point, if not perfectly.
Kwea
[ October 07, 2004, 08:06 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Duelfer said yesterday that while Sadaam had no nuclear capabilities, his findings showed that he was actively working toward getting them.
You can't sanction away desires. You can only prevent nations from achieving those desires.
And despite all of Saddam's efforts, which Duelfer documented, Saddam's weapons program WEAKENED between 1998 and our invasion. This means sanction were working. In fact, it is ever BETTER proof of the effectiveness of sanctions than it would be had Saddam not been trying to circumvent them. If Saddam was trying to circumvent the sanctions yet could not, it means they were doing their job.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Just heard the actual report from this guy this morning on the radio and I paraphrase what I heard:
"Sanctions were FAILING and would have collapsed due to Russia and France intentionally skirting them in an attempt to open trade with Iraq"
I find the claim "Sanctions worked" regarding a report that so obviously claimed they were failing and what would happen when they did...a comical statement.
[ October 07, 2004, 10:52 AM: Message edited by: CStroman ]
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
Saddam's intentions to restart the weapons program were entirely based on interviews with him this year. He had no concrete "working towards," that we can find.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Ah...I'm failing to see how the once leader of the country claiming what he'd do if sanctions were lifted and just finding that out...is a rebuttal...
Maybe I'm not understanding your point.
Sorry, I'm thick headed sometimes.
Just to summarize my point. The UN had changed the sanctions on Iraq because Iraq complained (No American inspectors, XX amount of time notice before an inspection, sanctions being lifted if we allow inspectors, etc.) and were moving towards actual "lifting" of the sanctions....
Why?
Because UN member countries were illegally trading/accepting bribes from Iraq while sanctions were in place.
So let's just be a bush hater for a moment and say that the Inspectors stayed for a while longer and concluded that Sadaam had no WMD's.
Guess what? Sanctions get lifted because the terms of those sanctions are fulfilled (disarmament).
But wait!
Sadaam (now that he's captured) said as soon as Sanctions were lifted he would seek to gain WMD's again as a "deterrent to Iran"
But of course he would "never" even think of giving that knowledge or materials to people who want to harm, maim and destroy the US would he? It's not like he dislikes us or anything or shown any hostility towards us right?
Sanctions working?
Sanctions only put on "hold" Sadaam's plans to get WMD's. They did nothing for keeping him from acquiring them once those sanctions would be lifted.
Sanctions worked? Not from eliminating the threat. They only put the threat on hold.
Again, that's my opinion.
Read the Article from 2000 by the same Inspector.
[ October 07, 2004, 11:21 AM: Message edited by: CStroman ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Duelfer's comments this morning made it clear that Sadaam was projecting more than a desire-- the capability was there, and so was the intent.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
-I was rebutting the idea that Saddam was concretely working toward restarting. That's not the case.
-I have no opinions about the sanctions working or not working.
-You still haven't commented on the aluminum tube findings.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
The proof is in the pudding. Saddam's weapons capability decreased between 1998 and the invasion, during which only the sanctions were between him and his established goal of getting those WMDs. Thus, you can deny it all you want but sanctions worked. The proof is right there.
The WMD program diminished under sanctions.
quote:Guess what? Sanctions get lifted because the terms of those sanctions are fulfilled (disarmament).
But wait!
Sadaam (now that he's captured) said as soon as Sanctions were lifted he would seek to gain WMD's again as a "deterrent to Iran"
So what? Iraq has a right to do that, once sanctions are completely gone, unless they agree not to.
And if the U.N. thinks Iraq is still a threat, all it has to do is keep the sanctions.
quote:Sanctions only put on "hold" Sadaam's plans to get WMD's. They did nothing for keeping him from acquiring them once those sanctions would be lifted.
That's like complaining that convincts are merely putting their escape on "hold" until they are free to walk out the prison door legally.
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
Xap, why were the sanctions put in place?
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: That's like complaining that convincts are merely putting their escape on "hold" until they are free to walk out the prison door legally.
A better analogy would be it's like a rapist in jail claiming and planning to rape as soon as his term is finished. Being in Jail only puts that plan on hold. Legally he may fulfil his term in prison, but you haven't removed the threat that he'd rape again and in fact is planning to.
How do you remove that threat?
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: I am of the opinion that President Bush was fooled, but others in his cabinet were aware of the possibility that the WMD didn't exist, but were willing to gamble with soldiers lives in order to try their little experiment in nation building.
I agree. From the beginning I think this war has been about building a "road map of peace." Oil is the blood of capitalism which is the skeleton of democracy. It is strategically advantageous to give Israel allies and not let a mass murderer control the world’s largest supply of oil.
I am still debating in my head whether the war is worth it. I admit I am leaning towards it "is" being worth it. However, I think the administration could not muster support to go to war for a strategic purpose. I think they were fooled, and happy to be fooled, so they could have a pretext for a war that a Democracy would never sanction. I don't know whether to applaud them or hide under the covers, but Bush got exactly what his advisors wanted. It will take decades to see if it was worth it.
Now it is about rebuilding the infrastructure and winning the hearts and minds of the people. Frankly I hear too many partisan reports to have any confidence to guess to what extent we are welcome or unwelcome--now that we are there. I am assuming the people don't want a civil war.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Xap, why were the sanctions put in place?
Because Iraq invaded Kuwait and was then defeated.
quote:A better analogy would be it's like a rapist in jail claiming and planning to rape as soon as his term is finished. Being in Jail only puts that plan on hold. Legally he may fulfil his term in prison, but you haven't removed the threat that he'd rape again and in fact is planning to.
How do you remove that threat?
Well, you certainly don't murder him because his legally prescribed sentence is almost up.
[ October 07, 2004, 12:47 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Xap-- I'll be clearer: what were the sanctions meant to accomplish?
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: Because Iraq invaded Kuwait and was then defeated.
That is false per the UN resolutions engaging and prolonging sanctions.
All of those resolutions are available online from everywhere.
The UN resolutions were put in place even though Sadaam was defeated and even though he WITHDREW from Kuwait.
Why?
Because he was to DISARM his weapons listed. He refused.
Sanctions were put in place in order to force him to DISARM.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Sounds like he did disarm, just not in public in the way the UN wanted him to.
Cause for alarm, I grant. But for war?
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
"It's unsurprising that Saddam wanted people to think he had WMD. It's similar to N. Korea's concerns at being over-powered by other nations. It's the only way to assert power as a small country, in their eyes."
This is especially true considering Iran's nuclear ambitions. Good post dabbler.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote:I'll be clearer: what were the sanctions meant to accomplish?
Punish Iraq for its invasion and disarm it of the most dangerous parts of its arsenal that it could use to attack again.
This is precisely what was accomplished. This report reveals it succeeded in disarming Iraq, and was continuing to weaken Iraq's military capacity to attack again even after inspectors left.
[ October 07, 2004, 02:35 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
So Xapo, do you then advocate the lifting of sanctions while Sadaam was in power, which allows him to trade with whomever he wishes? And you can't say that "No, because he wanted to acquire WMD's if sanctions were ever lifted", because we would have never known that had we not deposed him.
So since the sanctions worked in your opinion and you think that is the route we should have gone...
All conditions of the sanctions being in place would be made which means they would have been removed while Sadaam would still be in power.
Is that the route you think we should have gone?
[ October 07, 2004, 02:50 PM: Message edited by: CStroman ]
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:So Xapo, do you then advocate the lifting of sanctions while Sadaam was in power, which allows him to trade with whomever he wishes?
Actually, you are the one who keeps suggesting that.
[ October 07, 2004, 03:02 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Promethius (Member # 2468) on :
Sanctions hurt the Iraqi people not Saddam. Plus Saddam was a ruthless dictator. His human rights violations alone were an excellent reason to invade.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
This report squarely contradicts the claim that sanctions didn't hurt Saddam.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
That's what is so funny. You speak to any US hating muslims (and I have) they accuse the US of killing upwards of 1million Iraqis from the sanctions. Even though it was the UN who put them in place. It's probably the Excuse our...excuse me...John Kerry's "friends" the French and etc. (who won't be sending any troops to Iraq regardless) used to illegally open black market trade with Iraq and Sadaam.
I was amazed when we invaded palaces and found FOOTLOCKERS full of millions of dollars of $$$, while his citizens couldn't get basic medical supplies.
So far, if the Muslims who claim the Sanctions have killed 1million Iraqis are right, then the War has cost LESS than a prolonged UN Sancioning would.
So you choose, 1 million more Iraqis dead due to sanctions or the tens of thousands since war overthrew Sadaam and allowed Aid to begin flowing freely into the country?
Google that sanction related topic about Iraq.
Posted by Promethius (Member # 2468) on :
I am not saying they didnt hurt his WMD program. I intended to suggest that he wasnt starving. He was still living in his luxurious palaces while his people struggled.
I have no doubt that sanctions diminished his ability to produce WMD's.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
So the war proves the best policy because it did everything the sanctions couldn't do and did it without mass murdering the Iraqis.
Sadaam is out of power and no future WMD's will be sought after or developed by him or his regime.
Sanctions FAILED at that, but did succeed at killing 1million+ Iraqis.
Posted by Boon (Member # 4646) on :
Bumped because the hypertext link screwed up the Today's Active Topics list for me. Selfish, yes. But effective.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Nobody is under the impression that sanctions are supposed to solve all the world's problems. They are a strategic move designed to achieve certain goals at certain costs. They achieved that goal in this case.
But it's rather absurd to say that this war, which has made Iraq even more dangerous now than under the sanctions, is killing fewer than sanctions - especially considering your 1 million number is something you've just made up and attibuted to "America-haters." None of your links includes a figure like that or evidence to back it up.
Furthermore, the war has not solved the possibility of future WMDs any more than sanctions did. Iraq is just as capable, if not more capable under a different ruler, to get WMDs in the future. And given Saddam did not help Al Qaeda, it's easily possible the next ruler will be more dangerous to our security than Saddam. This is a country where anti-Americanism is extremely high, after all.
[ October 07, 2004, 06:20 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote: And you can't say that "No, because he wanted to acquire WMD's if sanctions were ever lifted", because we would have never known that had we not deposed him.
Wait.
Did you just say we didn't know he wanted those types of weapons before we deposed him?
That is funny...Bush used that to go to war! , so how did we not know that before the war?
At leat TRY to be internally consistant, Chad....
Kwea
[ October 07, 2004, 06:27 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
But "some liberals (the Yahoo kind )" said Bush lied, so then that means he "Lied" about Sadaam wanting to have WMD because publicly Sadaam never admitted he wanted to get them as soon as the Sanctions were lifted.
So did Bush lie about the WMD's and Sadaam wanting them or was it true?
Consistency, consistency.
[ October 07, 2004, 07:01 PM: Message edited by: CStroman ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
No doubt at all that he wanted them.
No doubt now that he didn't have them.
And no doubt that Bush lied about him having them in order to convince the US to go to war.
Where is the logical inconsistancy in those points? Either Bush didn't know, so he lied about knowing....or he knew, but can't find (or plant them in public) them now...
Either way, you can't say we didn't know, when the reason we went to war, according to the President, was to disarm him of those weapons (which, it turns out, he didn't really have)...
See my point?
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: And no doubt that Bush lied about him having them in order to convince the US to go to war.
I don't buy that opinion for a second. Sorry. I seriously doubt he is a prophet or diviner.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Again, the same intelligence that told us he had them, told us he wanted them before the war.
The only way we know he wanted them, is because now that he is captured because of the WAR, (where he would be in power if the bush haters had their way) he has admitted to plans to get them again if sanctions were lifted (which is where'd we be if the bush haters had their way).
See you can't claim he has them and wants them, send in inspectors (instead of go to war), find out he doesn't have them, but claim the same FLAWED intelligence that said he had them shows he wants them (because Sadaam would have NEVER admitted to that while in power and wanting sanctions lifted. That is an absurd claim).
They would have had to drop the sanctions. You would have had some stupid @ss country like France or Russia that had already been bribed and traded with them during the sanctions stand up and say.
"Well the inspectors have shown that he doesn't have WMD's and that the world's intelligence gatherers said he did, and it's those same intelligence gatherers that says he wants them if we lift sanctions when Sadaam says he doesn't. And Sadaam has met the requirements necessary by disarming to have the sanctions removed so what are the arguments for keeping them up again?"
The Sanctions would have been dropped (assuming the inspectors were even effective and not kicked out, or killed because of the Afghan war bringing out anti-American insurgents in Iraq. Oh yeah, you think the people who attacked the UN in Iraq would NOT have had we invaded Afghanistan? I guarantee you that Sadaam would have used the invasion of Afghanistan as an excuse to kick the UN out again, or at least allow the inspectors to be harrassed or taken hostage.)
And the sanctions being dropped would have meant that Sadaam would still be in power. The Iraqi's would still be under his dictatorship. And he would be FREE to persue WMD's with no sanctions on him.
Sorry, the war was the right war at the right time factually.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:I seriously doubt he is a prophet or diviner.
True, but I guess I must have been a prophet or diviner, because I did say before the war that we didn't know there were WMDs in Iraq as Bush claimed we knew.
Then again, I also said toppling Saddam would likely just lead to Iraq becoming a new haven for terrorism. The question is - why can ordinary people see these things coming, but apparently not the executive branch of our government with billions of dollars in their budget and countless expert advisors?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
He lied, or his people didn't know shit.
Either way, it's his fault.
Posted by The Federal Government (Member # 6807) on :
[whispers]pssst. Hey. You. Over here. Yeah here. Listen, you've got to help me. In less than 30 days, you're going to get your chance to get this George W. Bush guy out of the White House, out of the government, and out of my hair. For good! This guys a nut! He really is! He refuses to listen to reason--he can be staring reason in the face, and then he just turns one way or the other, shrugs, and goes on doing the same damn stupid thing. Over and over again. You've got to get to the polls, and vote him the hell out! No, don't vote for Nader. I mean, he's a nice guy and all..a little weird, but a nice guy. But you know what will happen if you vote for him--Bush will win again, and he'll be pissed, really pissed. You've got to vote for that other guy--Kerry. It's OK, he's a nice guy--he really is. He fought for his country, didn't hide from it, and then used the rights given him as a citizen to stand up for what he thought was right, even though it hurt him then, and it's hurting him now. But that's what I'm all about, isn't it? Oh, sh**! GWB has seen me! He's going to hurt me again! G2G!
[ October 08, 2004, 12:05 AM: Message edited by: The Federal Government ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:This report reveals it succeeded in disarming Iraq, and was continuing to weaken Iraq's military capacity to attack again even after inspectors left.
The report revealed that Iraq had no nuclear capability, and destroyed most of it's stockpile of chemical weapons-- but that Sadaam was continuing the pursuit of biological and chemical weapons in secret. The report details that plans were put in place to assemble and produce WMD within months of the end of sanctions.
The report and its author state very clearly that sanctions were eroding. To me, this means that Iraq was finding ways to get around them, and that the UN had lost its authority.
NOW-- none of this is a justification for the war. Poor intelligence showed that Sadaam had WMD, and that was the justification that the US used to invade. The fact that France and Germany had (perhaps) illegal contracts with Iraq for oil or whatever doesn't figure in. The fact that the UN offered only weak leadership doesn't matter. What matters is that the reason we were told that we had to send our troops to die was incorrect.
Sadaam did not pose a threat to the US when we invaded. He posed a threat to his own people, sure; you can argue that so did sanctions, since Sadaam wasn't touched by them at all, but his people were.
That EVERYONE was duped by all sorts of bad intelligence isn't an excuse either. In America, we pride ourselves on quality, and this time we failed.
I am not ready to believe that Bush deliberately lied to the public about Iraq and WMD. I've seen no evidence for it. But I do wish he would own up to the fact that the reasons we invaded were mistaken.
And this information does not change my November vote. Kerry thought Iraq had WMD as well, remember? Since I do not find either candidate satisfactory, I will write in a protest vote.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:The report revealed that Iraq had no nuclear capability, and destroyed most of it's stockpile of chemical weapons-- but that Sadaam was continuing the pursuit of biological and chemical weapons in secret.
WANTING to produce WMDs is not the same thing as producing WMDs. Hoping sanctions end so you can start pursuing WMDs is not the pursuit of WMDs.
I don't think anyone ever thought sanctions could or should eliminate the DESIRE for these weapons programs from Saddam's mind. Nothing, not even war, will do that. Saddam likely still wants WMDs, even sitting in his prison cell.
The report said specifically that these weapons programs were on the decline. It's easy to claim sanctions are eroding, but where is the evidence? If the weapons programs were still weakening, rather than restarting, then sanctions had not eroded to a degree where the purpose of the sanctions is undermined.
quote:Kerry thought Iraq had WMD as well, remember?
Yes, but Kerry wasn't the one claiming he KNEW there were WMDs there. Bush may have not lied about there being WMDs - he may have just been ill-informed. But he definitely lied when he said he KNEW Saddam had these weapons - because we can now see he knew nothing of the sort, and had no evidence more than we did, contrary to what he implied.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
As has become increasingly more clear, as well, Senators and representatives were not shown an unbiased picture. Reports from experts who contested the administration's views were not brought forth, and reports from experts which supported the administration's views were trumpeted with more certainty than they themselves asserted.
So what senators and representatives thought about WMDs was viewed through a glass tainted by the administration's viewpoint. Of course they thought Iraq had WMDs, the intelligence they were shown was pre-slanted to support the case for WMDs more than it did!
That this happened, and that it happened with the knowledge of top-ranking administration officials including Cheney, Rice, and Powell is made abundantly clear in the example of the aluminum tube intelligence (our sole substantial reason that we put forth in the National Intelligence Estimate for Iraq being close to nuclear arms, and known to be laughable for that purpose by nuclear scientists in the Energy department, one of whom jokingly suggested that if this were how Saddam wanted to make nuclear weapons we should give the tubes to him as they were worse than other technology he already had, and using the tubes would take him many years to refine enough uranium).
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote:Nothing, not even war, will do that.
Actually the war made it impossible that he will get them...ever. It also made it possible for democracy to have a chance there. It also allowed us to KNOW what we do now about the WMD's.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
And actually, could you imagine the horrible mess we'd actually have if we DIDN'T invade?
You'd have another half million dead Iraqi children due to the continued Sanctions.
You'd have Sadaam still in complete control of his country.
You'd have had the sanctions LIFTED because (if we accept the liberal presumption of the best case scenario that we would have found NO WMD's) they would have found that he had no WMD's.
You'd have a man who wants WMD's with NOTHING being able to stop him from acquiring them.
And the people of Iraq would still be living under Tyrrany.
So, to recap to make sure you don't miss it:
- 500,000+ more dead Iraqi Children. - Sadaam in complete control of his country. - France and Russia having subverted the sanctions anyway to make more $$$. - Sanctions being lifted because no WMD's being found. - Sadaam freely being able to persue WMD's as he wanted.
Well, that plan seems to suck eggs to me.
Just my opinion of course.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:It's easy to claim sanctions are eroding, but where is the evidence? If the weapons programs were still weakening, rather than restarting, then sanctions had not eroded to a degree where the purpose of the sanctions is undermined.
Are you going to trust the report and the author of the report only when he says things that agree with your worldview?
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
I actually heard the sound byte on the radio where the Duelfer guy actually said:
Sanctions were collapsing.
I think people are reading the Liberal News "spin" on the report instead of the actual report themselves.
It's rather comical to claim "Sanctions are working" and basing it on a report that clearly says "sanctions were collapsing".
And when those sanctions collapse (which can't be argued against if he had no WMD's) with Sadaam "still" in power....
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
CStroman, So we'd have all of the negatives of not having sanctions AND all of the negatives of having sanctions but none of the positives of either? You're being unrealistic. If there had been no war there we'd simply have Saddam still there, still under sanctions, and continually weakening. Iraqis would still be poor but there'd be little threat from Saddam.
quote:Are you going to trust the report and the author of the report only when he says things that agree with your worldview?
No, I'll trust him on all the facts he gives. But you are putting words into his mouth that are the opposite of what the report claims. You are trying to suggest comments about an erosion of sanctions imply that Saddam was capable of restarting his weapons programs, whereas the report contradicts this. Saddam was trying but could not restart his weapons programs between 1998 and our invastion, thus any claim that sanctions had eroded enough to allow Saddam to restart his weapons programs is false.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Incidently, there is nothing inconsistent about saying sanctions are both working and eroding. Sanctions only work if you enforce them. If they are not enforced it is not the sanctions that are to blame but the people supposed to be following those sanctions - and the solution is not war, but rather to actually enforce the sanctions.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I don't understand your logic. How can something be both working and not working?
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
If you ban guns and then don't enforce the ban, you can't say "well, I guess gun bans aren't effective."
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Apparently, you can. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
So-- the UN isn't effective?
We agree there.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
No, the UN is effective. Sanctions DID work after all, as the report proves. There were no WMDs, no WMD program, and Saddam's weapons capacity was declining. And it did that without weapons inspectors inside Iraq and with Saddam working as hard as he could to get around the sanctions. That's not just success - it's spectacular success.
There's simply no evidence any more to back up claims that the U.N. was not effective on Iraq between the first Gulf War and our invasion.
[ October 08, 2004, 11:53 AM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Sadaam would NOT be under sanctions. The terms of the sanctions being in place were that he would account for his WMD's and Disarm them.
If we find out he doesn't have WMD's the conditions for the sanctions remaining no longer exist.
If anyone thinks for one moment that once it was found that he didn't have WMD's that France or Russia wouldn't VETO any resolution asking for a continuation of Sanctions is up in the night.
They had accepted BRIBES from Sadaam during sanctions and were "illicitly" trading with him.
I encourage ANYONE to read the history of UN resolutions dealing with Iraq and the conditions for Sanctions.
You can't keep Sanctions on a country that has fulfilled the requirements for those sanctions to be lifted.
As much as the US wouldn't want that to happen, how would you have stopped it from happening?
Sadaam would be FREE to persue WMD's.
Again, that is my opinion.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Except the report specifically states that the effectiveness of the sanctions was eroding, and that Sadaam was using oil money to purchase things like weapons delivery systems, and that Sadaam retained material and expertise to produce chemical and biological weapons.
If that is spectacular success. . .
:shrug:
Are we not looking at the same report, Xap?
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
No, but you are taking very minor issues and trying to twist them into a failure, when the big picture paints a clear success. You are changing the criterion for success from doing a good job at achieving our goals to doing a perfect job of fixing every problem we have with Saddam.
Again, whether or not the sanctions are "eroding" is not a huge deal so long as the goal is still being achieved - the continued disarming of Iraq - and the report says that was achieved. If they didn't erode to a level where Saddam could restart any weapons programs, it doesn't matter much.
Also again, the sanctions did not solve all the world's problems, but they did disarm Iraq, prevent any concrete weapons program from existing in any form, and cause the continued diminishing of Saddam's weapons programs even after inspectors left. No, it's not a perfect score, no-hit-game sort of success, but it's pretty spectacular when you consider how hard Saddam was trying to get around it and how much anti-UN folk kept claiming the sanctions had done nothing.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)