(Close Window)
Topic: Weapons of Mass Destruction
Message: Posted by: Mystification (Oct 15, 2014 10:41AM)
Http://www.ijreview.com/2014/10/188068-scoff-new-york-times-blasts-biggest-myth-george-w-bush-iraq-war-water/
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 15, 2014 11:33AM)
Http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=565575&forum=32&start=300
Message: Posted by: RNK (Oct 15, 2014 11:37AM)
More PROOF Iraq had WMD's! What say you to this article Magnus?
Message: Posted by: RNK (Oct 15, 2014 12:32PM)
And Landmark?
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 15, 2014 12:46PM)
[quote]On Oct 15, 2014, RNK wrote:
More PROOF Iraq had WMD's! What say you to this article Magnus? [/quote]

I say what I said in the other thread. Fragments of discarded weapons is not the same thing as weapons. You might as well say that Germany has active weapons in Europe because there are still undetected landmines.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Oct 15, 2014 01:25PM)
If these are weapons of mass destruction, then I wonder why Iraq didn’t use these weapons of mass destruction against U.S. troops and mass destruct them?

Perhaps Sadam thought, no I better not, or I will get into trouble. :)
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Oct 15, 2014 01:50PM)
Yea random fragments of weapons are all over the place.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 15, 2014 01:59PM)
From the descriptions, these are abandoned weapons many years past being serviceable. Perhaps there is more information to come out.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Oct 15, 2014 02:29PM)
[quote]On Oct 15, 2014, Mystification wrote:
Http://www.ijreview.com/2014/10/188068-scoff-new-york-times-blasts-biggest-myth-george-w-bush-iraq-war-water/ [/quote]
It misrepresents in several places what the NY times article actually says. You would do better to read the original article, not a spin doctored version of it.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html

Some key excerpts, especially the last three paragraphs:

After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Mr. Bush insisted that Mr. Hussein was hiding an active weapons of mass destruction program, in defiance of international will and at the world’s risk. United Nations inspectors said they could not find evidence for these claims.

Then, during the long occupation, American troops began encountering old chemical munitions in hidden caches and roadside bombs. Typically 155-millimeter artillery shells or 122-millimeter rockets, they were remnants of an arms program Iraq had rushed into production in the 1980s during the Iran-Iraq war.

All had been manufactured before 1991, participants said. Filthy, rusty or corroded, a large fraction of them could not be readily identified as chemical weapons at all. Some were empty, though many of them still contained potent mustard agent or residual sarin. Most could not have been used as designed, and when they ruptured dispersed the chemical agents over a limited area, according to those who collected the majority of them.

In case after case, participants said, analysis of these warheads and shells reaffirmed intelligence failures. First, the American government did not find what it had been looking for at the war’s outset, then it failed to prepare its troops and medical corps for the aged weapons it did find.

Participants in the chemical weapons discoveries said the United States suppressed knowledge of finds for multiple reasons, including that the government bristled at further acknowledgment it had been wrong. “They needed something to say that after Sept. 11 Saddam used chemical rounds,” Mr. Lampier said. “And all of this was from the pre-1991 era.”

Others pointed to another embarrassment. In five of six incidents in which troops were wounded by chemical agents, the munitions appeared to have been designed in the United States, manufactured in Europe and filled in chemical agent production lines built in Iraq by Western companies.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Oct 15, 2014 08:07PM)
[quote]On Oct 15, 2014, balducci wrote:
[quote]On Oct 15, 2014, Mystification wrote:
You would do better to read the original article, not a spin doctored version of it.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html

Some key excerpts, especially the last three paragraphs:
...United Nations inspectors said they could not find evidence for these claims...
[/quote][/quote]

Speaking of spin doctored. You think a reasonable person might believe that one reason evidence wasn't found might have been that in contravention of the ceasefire agreement for the first Gulf War, Sadaam Hussein wasn't allowing the weapons inspectors full access? Ten DEA agents couldn't find a join at Tommy Chong's house, as long as he got to decide what search areas were off limits.



[quote] "of great significance, is that many proscribed weapons and items are not accounted for. To take an example, a document which Iraq provided suggested to us that some 1,000 tons of chemical agent were unaccounted for. One must not jump to the conclusion that they exist; however, that possibility is also not excluded." [/quote]

-Hans Blix, 2003
Message: Posted by: landmark (Oct 15, 2014 08:29PM)
[quote] a reasonable person might believe...[/quote]
...that someone who really wanted to know the truth would give the weapons inspectors the time [i]they requested[/i] to finish the job. But instead Bush lied about the imminence of the danger and decided to incinerate innocent Iraqis.

Some commentary on the recent pathetic reports designed to deflect blame for the thoughtless plunging of the mid-east into the chaotic nightmare that it is now:
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/10/15/despite-attempts-revise-history-bush-still-wrong-iraqi-wmds/
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Oct 15, 2014 08:33PM)
If only Lucy would have given Charlie Brown one more chance to kick the ball, it would have been fine.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Oct 15, 2014 09:08PM)
[quote]On Oct 15, 2014, landmark wrote:
[quote] a reasonable person might believe...[/quote]
... lied about the imminence of the danger ...
[/quote]
Yes, a very key point some keep ignoring.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Oct 15, 2014 09:17PM)
[quote]On Oct 15, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:
If only Lucy would have given Charlie Brown one more chance to kick the ball, it would have been fine. [/quote]
Lucy didn't end up with hundreds of thousands dead and a situation so bad now, there may be no solution whatsoever.

Amazing how the talking heads who supported the chaos and destruction still get to continue their punditry despite the absolute disaster the policies they supported created.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Oct 15, 2014 09:18PM)
Amazing how some of the right wing news outlets are purposely misstating what the New York Times article actually says.

How quickly some forget the facts regarding ACTUAL WMDs and not rusted remnants of old weaponry:

http://www.therightperspective.org/2010/03/03/rove-admits-no-wmd-found-in-iraq/
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Oct 15, 2014 09:35PM)
[quote]On Oct 15, 2014, balducci wrote:
[quote]On Oct 15, 2014, landmark wrote:
[quote] a reasonable person might believe...[/quote]
... lied about the imminence of the danger ...
[/quote]
Yes, a very key point some keep ignoring. [/quote]

Just as others keep ignoring the fact that we didn't know whether or not there were WMD in Iraq, and we didn't know specifically because of Sadaam Hussein's actions.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Oct 15, 2014 09:37PM)
[quote]On Oct 15, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
Amazing how some of the right wing news outlets are purposely misstating what the New York Times article actually says.

How quickly some forget the facts regarding ACTUAL WMDs and not rusted remnants of old weaponry:

http://www.therightperspective.org/2010/03/03/rove-admits-no-wmd-found-in-iraq/ [/quote]

It's also amazing how some people translate "No WMD were found in Iraq" to "No WMD were in Iraq."
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 15, 2014 10:07PM)
[quote]On Oct 15, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Oct 15, 2014, balducci wrote:
[quote]On Oct 15, 2014, landmark wrote:
[quote] a reasonable person might believe...[/quote]
... lied about the imminence of the danger ...
[/quote]
Yes, a very key point some keep ignoring. [/quote]

Just as others keep ignoring the fact that we didn't know whether or not there were WMD in Iraq, and we didn't know specifically because of Sadaam Hussein's actions. [/quote]

Hans Blix was fully qualified and was well placed to make the determination that there were no WMDs in Iraq. The Bush and Blair administrations apparently worked hard to undermine Blix, but Blix had the facts on his side.

It is at best lame to claim that there was not 100% certainty. There was excellent evidence and it was publicly dismissed by leaders with none.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Oct 15, 2014 10:17PM)
[quote]On Oct 15, 2014, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]On Oct 15, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Oct 15, 2014, balducci wrote:
[quote]On Oct 15, 2014, landmark wrote:
[quote] a reasonable person might believe...[/quote]
... lied about the imminence of the danger ...
[/quote]
Yes, a very key point some keep ignoring. [/quote]

Just as others keep ignoring the fact that we didn't know whether or not there were WMD in Iraq, and we didn't know specifically because of Sadaam Hussein's actions. [/quote]

Hans Blix was fully qualified and was well placed to make the determination that there were no WMDs in Iraq. The Bush and Blair administrations apparently worked hard to undermine Blix, but Blix had the facts on his side.

It is at best lame to claim that there was not 100% certainty. There was excellent evidence and it was publicly dismissed by leaders with none. [/quote]

If he was "fully qualified," one wonders why Blix was making "at best lame" statements as late as 2003, the year we went to war in March.

[quote] "of great significance, is that many proscribed weapons and items are not accounted for. To take an example,[i] a document which Iraq provided suggested to us that some 1,000 tons of chemical agent were unaccounted for. [/i]One must not jump to the conclusion that they exist; however,[b] that possibility is also not excluded."[/b] [/quote]

-Hans Blix, 2003
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Oct 15, 2014 10:23PM)
[quote]On Oct 15, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Oct 15, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
Amazing how some of the right wing news outlets are purposely misstating what the New York Times article actually says.

How quickly some forget the facts regarding ACTUAL WMDs and not rusted remnants of old weaponry:

http://www.therightperspective.org/2010/03/03/rove-admits-no-wmd-found-in-iraq/ [/quote]

It's also amazing how some people translate "No WMD were found in Iraq" to "No WMD were in Iraq." [/quote]

Obviously, there is no question that at one point in time there were WMDs in Iraq. The problem is that NONE were found after we invaded-a fact that has been repeatedly acknowledged by members of the Bush administration and President Bush himself. In other words, our purported reason for invading and ignoring the request to allow more time for the UN mission to complete its investigation, was without merit. Finding remnants of useless weaponry from a decade before hardly constitutes a vindication of the claim that active WMDs were being stockpiled by Hussein.

But I suppose that as long as there is history, there will be those who seek to rewrite it.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Oct 15, 2014 10:32PM)
[quote]On Oct 15, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]On Oct 15, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Oct 15, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
Amazing how some of the right wing news outlets are purposely misstating what the New York Times article actually says.

How quickly some forget the facts regarding ACTUAL WMDs and not rusted remnants of old weaponry:

http://www.therightperspective.org/2010/03/03/rove-admits-no-wmd-found-in-iraq/ [/quote]

It's also amazing how some people translate "No WMD were found in Iraq" to "No WMD were in Iraq." [/quote]

Obviously, there is no question that at one point in time there were WMDs in Iraq. The problem is that NONE were found after we invaded-a fact that has been repeatedly acknowledged by members of the Bush administration and President Bush himself. In other words, our purported reason for invading and ignoring the request to allow more time for the UN mission to complete its investigation, was without merit. Finding remnants of useless weaponry from a decade before hardly constitutes a vindication of the claim that active WMDs were being stockpiled by Hussein.

But I suppose that as long as there is history, there will be those who seek to rewrite it. [/quote]


"[O]ur purported reason for invading and ignoring the request to allow more time for the UN mission to complete its investigation was without merit" is not a restatement of "(No WMD) were found after we invaded" in other words.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Oct 15, 2014 10:43PM)
[quote]On Oct 15, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:

If he was "fully qualified," one wonders why Blix was making "at best lame" statements as late as 2003, the year we went to war in March.

[quote] "of great significance, is that many proscribed weapons and items are not accounted for. To take an example,[i] a document which Iraq provided suggested to us that some 1,000 tons of chemical agent were unaccounted for. [/i]One must not jump to the conclusion that they exist; however,[b] that possibility is also not excluded."[/b] [/quote]

-Hans Blix, 2003 [/quote]
That quote is from very early 2003, in the context of discussing 2002 inspections. He discusses this in an article he subsequently wrote.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/18/opinion/iraq-war-hans-blix/

Hans Blix:

The Bush administration certainly wanted to go to war, and it advanced eradication of weapons of mass destruction as the main reason. As Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz has since explained, it was the only rationale that was acceptable to all parts of the U.S. administration.

The WMDs argument also carried weight with the public and with the U.S. Congress. Indeed, in the autumn of 2002 the threat seemed credible. While I never believed Saddam could have concealed a continued nuclear program, I too thought there could still be some biological and chemical weapons left from Iraq's war with Iran. If not, why had Iraq stopped U.N. inspections at many places around the country throughout the 1990s?

However, SUSPICIONS ARE ONE THING AND REALITY IS QUITE ANOTHER. U.N. inspectors were asked to search for, report and destroy real weapons. As we found no weapons and no evidence supporting the suspicions, we reported this. But U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfield dismissed our reports with one of his wittier retorts: "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Oct 15, 2014 11:01PM)
[quote]On Oct 15, 2014, balducci wrote:
[quote]On Oct 15, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:

If he was "fully qualified," one wonders why Blix was making "at best lame" statements as late as 2003, the year we went to war in March.

[quote] "of great significance, is that many proscribed weapons and items are not accounted for. To take an example,[i] a document which Iraq provided suggested to us that some 1,000 tons of chemical agent were unaccounted for. [/i]One must not jump to the conclusion that they exist; however,[b] that possibility is also not excluded."[/b] [/quote]

-Hans Blix, 2003 [/quote]


That quote is from very early 2003, [/quote]

As was the invasion of Iraq.


[quote]Hans Blix:


I too thought there could still be some biological and chemical weapons left from Iraq's war with Iran. If not, why had Iraq stopped U.N. inspections at many places around the country throughout the 1990s?
[/quote]
So, we agree that Hans Blix DID in fact think that it was feasible that Iraq had WMD, and that it was a reasonable inference to draw from Hussein's failure to comp,y with the inspections.

[quote]
However, SUSPICIONS ARE ONE THING AND REALITY IS QUITE ANOTHER.
[/quote]
Suspicions may or may not match reality. When the person suspected of hiding the weapons is the one deciding which areas can be inspected, suspicions are what there is to go on.

[quote]
U.N. inspectors were asked to search for, report and destroy real weapons. As we found no weapons and no evidence supporting the suspicions, we reported this. But U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfield dismissed our reports with one of his wittier retorts: "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." [/quote]

And as Blix goes on to point out, Rumsfield was correct.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Oct 15, 2014 11:02PM)
Rumsfield's argument seems to be the same as Lobo's- Just because we didn't find any doesn't mean they didn't exist.

The same argument, though, can be use to support ANY allegation that is unsupported by evidence.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Oct 15, 2014 11:05PM)
And if the cops get a warrant and search Tommy Chong's house six months later and don't find any pot, that proves it wasn't there when they started knocking?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Oct 15, 2014 11:09PM)
[quote]On Oct 16, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
Rumsfield's argument seems to be the same as Lobo's- Just because we didn't find any doesn't mean they didn't exist.

The same argument, though, can be use to support ANY allegation that is unsupported by evidence. [/quote]

I agree that it's not proof that they existed. However, it's perfectly adequate at [i]disproving[/i] the assertion that because they weren't found, they werent there.

Moreover, it's hindsight; total Monday morning quarterbacking. Hussein jerked the inspectors around ad nauseum. The decision to invade or not had to be made on incomplete information.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Oct 15, 2014 11:12PM)
[quote]On Oct 16, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:
And if the cops get a warrant and search six months later and don't find any pot, that proves it wasn't there when they started knocking? [/quote]
Excellent analogy, insomuch as starting an unnecessary and destabilizing war in Iraq in which thousands of Americans died made about as much sense as would starting one over a failed search of Tommy Chong's house.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Oct 15, 2014 11:20PM)
Now you're conflating two arguments: Whether it was reasonable to believe based on the available evidence that there were WMD in Iraq; and what it was or wasn't reasonable to do about it. I've only been arguing the first point. But I appreciate your lending the support of Hans Blix to my argument.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Oct 16, 2014 12:12AM)
Funny how people confuse a mistake with a lie, yet when someone of their own political philosophy outright lies it is not a big deal. With the benefit of hindsight it is easy to "told ya so" the situation. But really the idea that in real time nobody should have believed the at least intentional posing of the guy is silly.

He wanted to be perceived as having weapons. It was a game he was playing.

Can we stop acting like we took off an innocent leader who was sitting and hurting nobody? Mass graves and rape rooms really are a pretty good reason. I don't think we need to the the worlds policeman and think it was IN RETROSPECT a mistake to go in but consider the climate change/health care arguments always made by those who favor such things. What if he DID have weapons? What would the cost of doing nothing have been?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Oct 16, 2014 06:38AM)
[quote]On Oct 15, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Oct 15, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
Amazing how some of the right wing news outlets are purposely misstating what the New York Times article actually says.

How quickly some forget the facts regarding ACTUAL WMDs and not rusted remnants of old weaponry:

http://www.therightperspective.org/2010/03/03/rove-admits-no-wmd-found-in-iraq/ [/quote]

It's also amazing how some people translate "No WMD were found in Iraq" to "No WMD were in Iraq." [/quote]
I agree, we should always cause mass destruction and misery for generations because we're not sure whether a country has WMDs. Next stop Palau.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Oct 16, 2014 06:40AM)
[quote]On Oct 16, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:
And if the cops get a warrant and search Tommy Chong's house six months later and don't find any pot, that proves it wasn't there when they started knocking? [/quote]
If the cops find nothing they should start bombing immediately.

Edit: Ah, I see Balducci has already made the same argument, but less sarcastically.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Oct 16, 2014 06:43AM)
And when the astronauts landed on the moon an didn't find aliens, that proves they weren't there before our spacecraft arrived?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Oct 16, 2014 07:13AM)
[quote]On Oct 16, 2014, Dannydoyle wrote:
Funny how people confuse a mistake with a lie, yet when someone of their own political philosophy outright lies it is not a big deal. With the benefit of hindsight it is easy to "told ya so" the situation. But really the idea that in real time nobody should have believed the at least intentional posing of the guy is silly.

He wanted to be perceived as having weapons. It was a game he was playing.

Can we stop acting like we took off an innocent leader who was sitting and hurting nobody? Mass graves and rape rooms really are a pretty good reason. I don't think we need to the the worlds policeman and think it was IN RETROSPECT a mistake to go in but consider the climate change/health care arguments always made by those who favor such things. What if he DID have weapons? What would the cost of doing nothing have been? [/quote]
Well I'm not going to address the hypocrisy issue, but I will try to stick to this one. That is, "it was a mistake." As in, "We really tried hard to find out the truth but we came up short, sorry guys."

I strongly disagree. There was repeated [i]deliberate[/i] lying. From the yellowcake uranium accusations to the "imminent threat" declarations given to the public and Congress. They were [i]deliberate lies,[/i] and we know they were deliberate because they redacted their own CIA assessments that showed otherwise. The two reasons given to go to war in 2003 were 1) Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and 2) He was an imminent threat to the security of this country. They lied about both reasons. I feel it's really important to call them out on this and not give vague apologies that no one could have known. They knew and they lied.

As to Saddam Hussein's being an innocent leader, there is no question that he was a brutal dictator to those who opposed him and to his enemies. But women had far more rights under Hussein than they have now; they were doctors and lawyers and at all the universities. He ran a secular government that didn't tolerate any Sunni and Shi'a fighting. Muslims and Christians were for the most part free to pursue their religions. The literacy was high and the economy, pre-sanctions, was probably the most vibrant in the Arab world.

As for rape rooms etc., here is a post Saddam account:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-dark-and-secret-dungeons-of-iraq-horror-stories-of-female-prisoners/5313974

Not much has changed there.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Oct 16, 2014 10:17AM)
[quote]On Oct 16, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
And when the astronauts landed on the moon an didn't find aliens, that proves they weren't there before our spacecraft arrived? [/quote]

That would almost be a good analogy if you knew for certain that 1) at one time there WERE aliens on the moon, and 2) the moon was trying to create new aliens.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Oct 16, 2014 11:16AM)
I said they were deliberately lying about the WMD program they supposedly found there. There's lots of documentation about the yellow cake affair. I'm sure you can find it. What the Bush admin's state of mind was re the existence of WMDs cannot be ascertained for sure because they lied so much about everything, but a reasonable person would take the following into account: They knew that the WMDs that Rumsfeld had given to Saddam in the 80s had been dismantled (though they didn't get back the cowboy boots that Rumsfeld had gifted to Saddam). They knew that Saddam had not used WMDs in the Gulf War under Bush Sr; they knew that Blix had found nothing; they knew that if Blix and the inspectors had remained in Iraq there was no way a nuclear weapons program could have continued even if there was one--too much movement around the country needed; the plan to invade Iraq came way before 2003; they knew there were no ties between Al-Qaeda and Saddam as per the CIA's advice; they knew Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. It beggars belief that they could not find one reliable witness in all of Iraq to testify to the existence of WMDs.

It was an unspeakable war crime, and we are paying the price for it right now.