Wmd In Iraq

This is a column by conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer.

I'm interested in reasoned responses to this, as it reflects what I've been saying all along.

WMD In a Haystack

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, October 10, 2003; Page A27


Rolf Ekeus, living proof that not all Swedish arms inspectors are fools, may have been right.

Ekeus headed the U.N. inspection team that from 1991 to 1997 uncovered not just tons of chemical and biological weapons in Iraq but a massive secret nuclear weapons program as well. This after the other Swede, Hans Blix, then director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, had given Saddam Hussein a perfectly clean bill of health on being non-nuclear. Indeed, Iraq had a seat on the IAEA board of governors.

Ekeus theorizes that Hussein decided years ago that it was unwise to store mustard gas and other unstable and corrosive poisons in barrels, and also difficult to conceal them. Therefore, rather than store large stocks of weapons of mass destruction, he would adapt the program to retain an infrastructure (laboratories, equipment, trained scientists, detailed plans) that could "break out" and ramp up production when needed. The model is Japanese "just in time" manufacturing, where you save on inventory by making and delivering stuff in immediate response to orders. Except that Hussein's business was toxins, not Toyotas.

The interim report of chief U.S. weapons inspector David Kay seems to support the Ekeus hypothesis. He found infrastructure, but as yet no finished product.

As yet, mind you. "We are not yet at the point where we can say definitively either that such weapons stocks do not exist or that they existed before the war and our only task is to find where they have gone," Kay testified last week.

This is fact, not fudging. How do we know? Because Hussein's practice was to store his chemical weapons unmarked amid his conventional munitions, and we have just begun to understand the staggering scale of Hussein's stocks of conventional munitions. Hussein left behind 130 known ammunition caches, many of which are more than twice the size of Manhattan. Imagine looking through "600,000 tons of artillery shells, rockets, aviation bombs and other ordnance" -- rows and rows stretched over an area the size of even one Manhattan -- looking for barrels of unmarked chemical weapons.

And there are 130 of these depots. Kay's team has so far inspected only 10. The question of whether Hussein actually retained finished product is still open.

But the question of whether he was still in the WMD business is no longer open. "We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities," Kay testified, "and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002" -- concealed, that is, from the hapless Hans Blix.

Kay's list is chilling. It includes a secret network of labs and safe houses within the Mukhabarat, the Iraqi foreign intelligence service; bioorganisms kept in scientists' homes, including a vial of live botulinum toxin; and my favorite, "new research on BW [biological weapons]-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever, and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin" -- all "not declared to the U.N."

I have been to medical school, and I have never heard of Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever. I don't know one doctor in 100 who has. It is a rare disease, and you can be sure that Hussein was not seeking a cure.

He was not after the Nobel in physiology (Yasser Arafat having already won the peace prize). He was looking for a way to turn these agents into killers. The fact that he was not stockpiling is relevant only to the question of why some prewar intelligence was wrong about Iraq's WMD program. But it is not relevant to the question of whether a war to preempt his development of WMD was justified.

The fact that Hussein may have decided to go from building up stocks to maintaining clandestine production facilities (may have: remember, Kay still has 120 depots to go through) does not mean that he got out of the WMD business. Otherwise, by that logic, one would have to say that until the very moment at which the plutonium from its 8,000 processed fuel rods is wedded to waiting nuclear devices, North Korea does not have a nuclear program.

Hussein was simply making his WMD program more efficient and concealable. His intent and capacity were unchanged.

Moreover, for those who care about the United Nations (I do not, but many administration critics have a weakness for legal niceties), Resolution 1441, unanimously passed by the Security Council, ordered Hussein to make a full accounting of his WMD program and to cooperate with inspectors, and warned that there would be no more tolerance for concealment or obstruction. Kay's finding of "dozens of WMD-related program activities" concealed from U.N. inspectors constitutes an irrefutable material breach of 1441 -- and an open-and-shut justification for the U.S. decision to disarm Saddam Hussein by force.

Quote:

---

may have been right.

---

Quote:

---

The fact that Hussein may have decide

---

Quote:

---

may have: remember, Kay still has 120 depots to go through

---

As Usual, "may" or "if" or "probably"

Quote:

---

Ekeus headed the U.N. inspection team that from 1991 to 1997 uncovered not just tons of chemical and biological weapons in Iraq but a massive secret nuclear weapons program as well.

---

Quote:

---

"We are not yet at the point where we can say definitively either that such weapons stocks do not exist or that they existed before the war and our only task is to find where they have gone,"

---

Which is it, "uncovered" or "definitively"?

Quote:

---

But the question of whether he was still in the WMD business is no longer open.

---

Since "the question" "is no longer open", then why did the US/UK invaded Iraq?

Quote:

---

nuclear weapons program

---

Quote:

---

adapt the program to retain an infrastructure

---

Quote:

---

We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities

---

Quote:

---

Iraq's WMD program

---

Quote:

---

Hussein was simply making his WMD program more efficient and concealable.

---

Quote:

---

full accounting of his WMD program

---

Quote:

---

dozens of WMD-related program activities

---

Program, program, program, prog..........
US initiated programs, US funded programs (until the late 80's), US stood aside when "program" tested.........
They should call Saddam Hussein a programmer for having so much "programs"

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Nikita
.........

---

Well said.

Maybe this and maybe that .... the US government is desperate to find proof. If they don't find any, they'll make it up. This is a public relations disaster for them, who will ever believe another word they say? Britain and Australia won't be so quick to jump in next time!


:)

Getting a bit desprete are we...

The US went for Strategic Reasons, simply put oil; the world is getting hungry for oil and it's a fight for who gets what’s left.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4@21 October 2003 - 05:56
This is a column by conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer.

I'm interested in reasoned responses to this, as it reflects what I've been saying all along.

---

Conservative says it all, defending lies to the last gasp.

Forgive me if I am wrong J2 ( the elderly have inconsistent memory function), but I seem to recall that back in Feb./March the administration was not talking about the potential for WMD, but their actual existence. And the immenent deployment of same.

The continued shift of focus of the Bush team (is Cheney still claiming ties to Al-Queda?) looks a lot like a tap dance to cover up intelligence and tactical blunders.

If I might sidestep for a post or two here, can anybody provide me with any statement GWB made in which he referred to the "fact" of an attack by Saddam being "imminent"?

Simple question-anyone got a simple answer?

J2, who's side are you on now?

The point most of us have made was, that we don't believe WMD's were the reason for the invasion. I think it was oil. same as Afghanistan. Why was he so keen to get in before the inspectors had finished? He also told the world he had 100% proof of WMD's. Now i want to know if Blair and Howard were shown proof, or not.

And as I've said before, i believe this is linked to Saudi Arabia too.

As an aside, j2, what is public opinion like over there on the whole affair?


:)

It took me 1 min and 1 source (from the horses mouth so there is no ????)

Quote:

---

QUESTION: Ari, the President has been saying that the threat from Iraq is imminent, that we have to act now to disarm the country of its weapons of mass destruction, and that it has to allow the U.N. inspectors in, unfettered, no conditions, so forth.

MR. FLEISCHER: Yes.

---

SOURCE

Quote:

---

Q Do you think the American people are prepared for casualties in Iraq?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that that presumes there's some kind of imminent war plan. As I said, I have no timetable. What I do believe the American people understand is that weapons of mass destruction in the hands of leaders such as Saddam Hussein are very dangerous for ourselves, our allies. They understand the concept of blackmail. They know that when we speak of making the world more safe, we do so not only in the context of al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, but nations that have proven themselves to be bad neighbors and bad actors.

---

SOURCE

SIMPLE QUESTIONS, SCIENCE ROCKET ANSWERS

Quote:

---

THE PRESIDENT: Three questions. Fournier.

Q Sir, is North Korea an imminent threat to the United States and what consequences, if any, will it face for hiding its nuclear program from you?

THE PRESIDENT: One, we had a bit of troubling news when we discovered the fact that, contrary to what we had been led to believe, that they were enriching uranium with the idea of developing a nuclear weapon. I say troubling news, obviously, because we felt like they had given their word they weren't going to do this.

I view this as an opportunity to work with our friends in the region and work with other countries in the region to ally against proliferation of serious weapons and to convince Kim Chong-il that he must disarm. To this end, I'm going to be talking to Jiang Zemin at Crawford. I look forward to a good discussion with the President of China about how we can work together to take our relationship to a new level in dealing with the true threats of the 21st century.

I will see the leaders of Japan and South Korea and Russia the next day, in Mexico. I intend to make this an important topic of our discussions. This is a chance for people who love freedom and peace to work together to deal with a -- to deal with an emerging threat. I believe we can deal with this threat peacefully, particularly if we work together. So this is an opportunity to work together.

Q They're not an imminent threat, though?

THE PRESIDENT: You know, that's an operative word. We view this very seriously. It is a troubling discovery, and it's a discovery that we intend to work with our friends to deal with. I believe we can do it peacefully. I look forward to working with people to encourage them that we must convince Kim Chong-il to disarm for the sake of peace. And the people who have got the most at stake, of course, in this posture are the people who are his neighbors.

Arshad.

Q Mr. President, can you explain so the boys in Lubbock can understand --

THE PRESIDENT: Crawford or Lubbock?

Q Lubbock or Crawford, both --

THE PRESIDENT: Lubbock is a little more sophisticated than Crawford, Arshad. (Laughter.)

Q Crawford, then.

THE PRESIDENT: Or Scotland, for that matter.

Q Why --

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Arshad.

Q Why you threaten military action against Iraq, but you believe that Korea's nuclear weapons program only merits diplomatic efforts?

THE PRESIDENT: Saddam Hussein is unique, in this sense: he has thumbed his nose at the world for 11 years. The United Nations has passed 16 resolutions to deal with this man, and the resolutions are all aimed at disarmament, amongst other things. And for 11 years, he said, no, I refuse to disarm.

Now, what makes him even more unique is the fact he's actually gassed his own people. He has used weapons of mass destruction on neighboring countries and he's used weapons of mass destruction on his own citizenry. He wants to have a nuclear weapon. He has made it very clear he hates the United States and, as importantly, he hates friends of ours.

We've tried diplomacy. We're trying it one more time. I believe the free world, if we make up our mind to, can disarm this man peacefully.

But, if not -- if not, there's -- we have the will and the desire, as do other nations, to disarm Saddam. It's up to him to make that decision and it's up to the United Nations. And we'll determine here soon whether the United Nations has got the will, and then it's up to Saddam to make the decision.

Stretch.

Q Mr. President, again, for the good people of Crawford --

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. It's been a big day for Crawford.

Q If you can explain this in a way that they and the rest of us will understand. There is some hints over the weekend, the possibility that taking weapons of mass destruction out of Iraq is our goal, raising the possibility or the implication that he could somehow remain in power.

Can you say authoritatively and declaratively whether you can achieve -- if you can achieve your aims there in a way that leaves him still in office?

THE PRESIDENT: The stated policy of the United States is regime change because, for 11 years, Saddam Hussein has ignored the United Nations and the free world. For 11 years, he has -- he said, look, you passed all these resolutions; I could care less what you passed. And that's why the stated policy of our government, the previous administration and this administration, is regime change -- because we don't believe he is going to change.

However, if he were to meet all the conditions of the United Nations, the conditions that I've described very clearly in terms that everybody can understand, that in itself will signal the regime has changed.

END 3:42 P.M. EDT

---

SOURCE

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Billy_Dean@21 October 2003 - 10:35
J2, who's side are you on now?

The point most of us have made was, that we don't believe WMD's were the reason for the invasion.  I think it was oil. same as Afghanistan.  Why was he so keen to get in before the inspectors had finished?  He also told the world he had 100% proof of WMD's.  Now i want to know if Blair and Howard were shown proof, or not.

And as I've said before, i believe this is linked to Saudi Arabia too.

As an aside, j2, what is public opinion like over there on the whole affair?


:)

---

Have I changed sides?

News to me....

The thread's topic is/was, basically, "Do/did WMD exist at a time proximate to the invasion of Iraq by the U.S. and it's allies (such as they were)?"

I have sidelighted the coincidental issue of the incredible twisting of the words uttered by GWB in his 2003 State of the Union address (and I am still awaiting a response to that).

After 12 years and 17 resolutions worth of U.N. dithering, you think we went in because of the oil?

100% proof or not, the litany of current nay-sayers can also be found to have stated, in the past, they also believed, with the utmost assuredness, that Saddam had WMD.

That is to say, everyone who is trying to keel-haul GWB for not having found more than the massive evidence of Saddam's intent and duplicity re: WMD can be proven to have suffered the same "misapprehension" right up to the point it became politically expedient to change their minds.

If it is linked to Saudi Arabia, how would that be germane to the question of WMD?

Here in the U.S., public opinion polls (depending on which one you read) bounce anywhere from 60-80% supporting GWB on the overall question of the war; on the question of WMD, last I looked, the numbers were something like 40% believe firmly WMD exist (or existed, right up until the war), 25% don't believe WMD ever existed, and 35% don't agree the existence of WMD was a necessary pre-requisite for ousting Saddam.

OT for a moment: Funny-public opinion polls are never an issue when someone wants to raise my taxes. :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by nikita69@21 October 2003 - 10:53
It took me 1 min and 1 source (from the horses mouth so there is no ????)

Quote:

---

QUESTION: Ari, the President has been saying that the threat from Iraq is imminent, that we have to act now to disarm the country of its weapons of mass destruction, and that it has to allow the U.N. inspectors in, unfettered, no conditions, so forth.

MR. FLEISCHER: Yes.

---

SOURCE

Quote:

---

Q Do you think the American people are prepared for casualties in Iraq?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that that presumes there's some kind of imminent war plan. As I said, I have no timetable. What I do believe the American people understand is that weapons of mass destruction in the hands of leaders such as Saddam Hussein are very dangerous for ourselves, our allies. They understand the concept of blackmail. They know that when we speak of making the world more safe, we do so not only in the context of al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, but nations that have proven themselves to be bad neighbors and bad actors.

---

SOURCE

SIMPLE QUESTIONS, SCIENCE ROCKET ANSWERS

Quote:

---

THE PRESIDENT: Three questions. Fournier.

Q Sir, is North Korea an imminent threat to the United States and what consequences, if any, will it face for hiding its nuclear program from you?

THE PRESIDENT: One, we had a bit of troubling news when we discovered the fact that, contrary to what we had been led to believe, that they were enriching uranium with the idea of developing a nuclear weapon. I say troubling news, obviously, because we felt like they had given their word they weren't going to do this.

I view this as an opportunity to work with our friends in the region and work with other countries in the region to ally against proliferation of serious weapons and to convince Kim Chong-il that he must disarm. To this end, I'm going to be talking to Jiang Zemin at Crawford. I look forward to a good discussion with the President of China about how we can work together to take our relationship to a new level in dealing with the true threats of the 21st century.

I will see the leaders of Japan and South Korea and Russia the next day, in Mexico. I intend to make this an important topic of our discussions. This is a chance for people who love freedom and peace to work together to deal with a -- to deal with an emerging threat. I believe we can deal with this threat peacefully, particularly if we work together. So this is an opportunity to work together.

Q They're not an imminent threat, though?

THE PRESIDENT: You know, that's an operative word. We view this very seriously. It is a troubling discovery, and it's a discovery that we intend to work with our friends to deal with. I believe we can do it peacefully. I look forward to working with people to encourage them that we must convince Kim Chong-il to disarm for the sake of peace. And the people who have got the most at stake, of course, in this posture are the people who are his neighbors.

Arshad.

Q Mr. President, can you explain so the boys in Lubbock can understand --

THE PRESIDENT: Crawford or Lubbock?

Q Lubbock or Crawford, both --

THE PRESIDENT: Lubbock is a little more sophisticated than Crawford, Arshad. (Laughter.)

Q Crawford, then.

THE PRESIDENT: Or Scotland, for that matter.

Q Why --

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Arshad.

Q Why you threaten military action against Iraq, but you believe that Korea's nuclear weapons program only merits diplomatic efforts?

THE PRESIDENT: Saddam Hussein is unique, in this sense: he has thumbed his nose at the world for 11 years. The United Nations has passed 16 resolutions to deal with this man, and the resolutions are all aimed at disarmament, amongst other things. And for 11 years, he said, no, I refuse to disarm.

Now, what makes him even more unique is the fact he's actually gassed his own people. He has used weapons of mass destruction on neighboring countries and he's used weapons of mass destruction on his own citizenry. He wants to have a nuclear weapon. He has made it very clear he hates the United States and, as importantly, he hates friends of ours.

We've tried diplomacy. We're trying it one more time. I believe the free world, if we make up our mind to, can disarm this man peacefully.

But, if not -- if not, there's -- we have the will and the desire, as do other nations, to disarm Saddam. It's up to him to make that decision and it's up to the United Nations. And we'll determine here soon whether the United Nations has got the will, and then it's up to Saddam to make the decision.

Stretch.

Q Mr. President, again, for the good people of Crawford --

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. It's been a big day for Crawford.

Q If you can explain this in a way that they and the rest of us will understand. There is some hints over the weekend, the possibility that taking weapons of mass destruction out of Iraq is our goal, raising the possibility or the implication that he could somehow remain in power.

Can you say authoritatively and declaratively whether you can achieve -- if you can achieve your aims there in a way that leaves him still in office?

THE PRESIDENT: The stated policy of the United States is regime change because, for 11 years, Saddam Hussein has ignored the United Nations and the free world. For 11 years, he has -- he said, look, you passed all these resolutions; I could care less what you passed. And that's why the stated policy of our government, the previous administration and this administration, is regime change -- because we don't believe he is going to change.

However, if he were to meet all the conditions of the United Nations, the conditions that I've described very clearly in terms that everybody can understand, that in itself will signal the regime has changed.

END 3:42 P.M. EDT

---

SOURCE

---

nikita69-

From the "horses mouth"?

I believe the horse in question goes by the name of Bush, not Fleischer.

All those who say "GWB said IMMINENT!!" are referring to the 2003 State of the Union address, the relevant passage of which is as follows:


With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes.

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning.


See? he didn't say it. You have allowed yourself to be misled by the politicians, the media, and your own willingness to believe what you are told by them.

To be technical about it, GWB may not have used this exact word "immenent", however, anyone that thinks that the president of the US is the one in control of the country and/or the direction it takes, then I suggest that person to do some research about the subject first.

The days where the president has full control/direction over the major issues in the US were over right after JFK. Since then, the holder of the Oval Office is more like a symbol than a "Leader". In addition, as a society, our expectations of such position has gone down. And that, is our fault. Voters tolerate all kinds of mistake levels in many countries.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by nikita69@21 October 2003 - 14:15
To be technical about it, GWB may not have used this exact word "immenent", however, anyone that thinks that the president of the US is the one in control of the country and/or the direction it takes, then I suggest that person to do some research about the subject first.

The days where the president has full control/direction over the major issues in the US were over right after JFK. Since then, the holder of the Oval Office is more like a symbol than a "Leader". In addition, as a society, our expectations of such position has gone down. And that, is our fault. Voters tolerate all kinds of mistake levels in many countries.

---

This is evasive, nikita-

If the president is nothing but a puppet, why are the democrats lined up over the hill to be next? Why is Hillary so focused on 2008?

Your statement that "..anyone who thinks the president......etc." is plain flat wrong.

You imply that everyone agrees with your supposition, which implication and supposition are both demonstrably false.

If you believe GWB is a figurehead with no real power, why are you so supportive of a state of paranoia as to what he might do?

Can you answer this last, specifically?

GW Bush never said "Imminent Threat" he just said threat, however now that you've used the word, you can agree that he implied it quite strongly on numerous occasions.

He also never corrected anyone that said this, as it played right into his hands...ie he could use his own Policy of "1st Strike", if Iraq was an "Imminent Threat".

As to the rest of this.....he did say on numerous occasions that Iraq had Stockpiles of WMD. It was also said on numerous occasions that the location of said stockpiles was known.

If the Ammunition is unmarked, then that will make the job very much easier...as all conventional ammunition is marked, very clearly, to differentiate between the different types of Shell and Fuze, inc colour coding. All you need do is look for the unmarked ammunition....


A thought also occurs however....

Quote:

---

The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning.

---

Apart from the obvious "Is Assembling" in regard to Iraq......

Take away "The Dictator", and replace the words "Iraqi Refugee's" with "Palestinians" in the above quote....and you are talking about Israel.

Add that to another quote of GW's......

Quote:

---

THE PRESIDENT: The stated policy of the United States is regime change because, for 11 years, Saddam Hussein has ignored the United Nations and the free world. For 11 years, he has -- he said, look, you passed all these resolutions; I could care less what you passed. And that's why the stated policy of our government, the previous administration and this administration, is regime change -- because we don't believe he is going to change.

---

Replace 11 years with 35 years and Saddam Hussain with Israel....


You wonder why the world, especially the Islamic world, talks about Hypocracy?

@j2k4

Quote:

---

If you believe GWB is a figurehead with no real power, why are you so supportive of a state of paranoia as to what he might do?

---

I never implied nor asserted to the "state of parania" part. Simply responding to the article.
[end]

In addition what has been said already, I suggest the following remarks by U.S. Senator Robert C. Byrd:
Today I Weep for My Country - I was surprised not to find it on his official site, eventhough that where I originally read it from.
The Truth Will Emerge
The Emperor Has No Clothes
Follow the Money in Iraq
Tell the World the True Cost of War
American Rhetoric Over the Top
Caspian Oil and Natural Gas Export Route Options - This was during a speech for Dick Cheney back in late 80's, yet the original link ("www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/casproute.html") no longer exists. WHY?

I have to confess I have at no point felt that Saddam was an imminent or even medium term threat to the UK (and at 65+ he did not have a long term). It was, I believe Tony Blair and his various dossiers that started this imminent stuff rather than George Bush.

[As a total aside what was that "Or Scotland for that matter" about. Was it simply word association on GW&#39;s part as Crawford is an old and noble Scottish name? - I will give him the benefit of the doubt <_< ]

I have also been rather non-plussed by the term WMD. Iraq&#39;s chemical weapon programme was only marginally more advanced than that of WW1. He did release gas on the Iranians and on Kurds living on the Iran/Iraq border; who he was convinced were helping Iran. This was done with barely a murmur from the West in 1987/88 who were desperately hoping he would succeed in overthrowing the Islamic leaders of Iran. Although unpleasant weapons, they are hardly in the nuclear category and have never, to my knowledge, been anything other than an extremely blunt and clumsy battlefield tool. They are more a weapon of fear than destruction.

In my view, Iraq had simply become a thorn too irritating in an already troublesome Middle East. This war, for good or ill, is ultimately about securing a number of keys in that important area.

1) To enable the US to withdraw from Saudi Arabia, whose presence is one of the key recruiting factors for AQ

2) To loosen up some of the constraints in the political arena so that Israel might consider adopting a more conciliatory approach with the Palestinians (be it through a reworked Oslo type agreement or the Road Map) It also removes a key supporter of some of the Palestinian militant groups.

3) To stabilise the economics of a region which ultimately impacts on every economy - even N. Korea

I believe other factors, like liberating Iraqis and fighting terroism in this instance are purely secondary, perhaps even tertiary. Indeed Tony Blair has conceded that the Iraqi war may actually increase current global terrorism.

I do not equate the Afghanistan conflict with the Iraqi one as the background is totally different. After the World Trade centre the US and the World at large had no option but to try and deal with the threat posed by AQ. Afghanistan is very much a work in progress and if it slips from the World agenda will revert to its age old tribal conflicts as quickly as snow melts off a dyke in the spring sun. The fact that Russians and US companies would like to put a pipeline through the country is neither here nor there. The Taliban were considering the proposition themselves. Arguably there is less chance of that happening in the foreseeable future than at any point. It would take more resources than it is worth to guard such a pipeline in the current climate there.

So, to the nub, Saddam had chemical and biological programmes before 1991. The UN destroyed much but it could not have possibly destroyed everything. Saddam&#39;s scientists who, unless they suddenly developed amensia, were well versed in the programmes and still worked in Iraq. In short I will be surprised if they don&#39;t find anything. I am however, unconvinced by the hidden shells in the massive conventional stock piles. How would the Iraqis find such weapons if that were the case? Why did they not use them in defence of their country? At the end of the day the Ba&#39;athists had nothing to lose.

To argue that the war was about a potential future threat, as Iraq could never unlearn what it already knew, is a bit weak to say the least.

WMD were, to my mind, merely a convenient device necessary to deal with a much grander ambition. Ultimately, too much emphasis was placed on the WMD by TB and GW.... far too much emphasis. This may have been because they were relying on information that was inaccurate and consequently were confident that such weapons would readily be found. However, the majority of the world community was unconvinced by the danger Saddam posed in this area and, to date, it is they who stand vindicated.

Of course this does not mean that I think Saddam&#39;s removal is a bad thing. His regime was brutal and corrupt and a number of the goals (as I view them) were/are worthy in themselves. Nevertheless, the outcome of this adventure is not necessarily going to improve the long term ME situation, as events unfold we can only keep our fingers crossed. I also hope, in an effort to extract ourselves, we do not fall into the old trap of supporting a "reliable" hard man to take over control.

[Incidentaly, the phials found in the fridge referred to above dated from 1991. The scientist was too frightened to dump them in case Saddam&#39;s men came back for them as Saddam tended to frown on that sort of thing. As to the Congo Crimean bug ??? a geographical oddity if ever there was one.]


I suppose, in summary, I consider the geopolitical impact of the war to be the main factor, WMD are a sideshow which TB and GW have trapped themselves into performing nightly and twice on Saturday. They are, I suspect, desperately looking for stand-ins as they have better roles to play.

Alas, another edit for typos and an inelegant phrase or two.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Biggles@21 October 2003 - 21:36
and at 65+ he did not have a long term.

---

Sorry to stray from the topic Biggles, but thanks. I will sleep easy tonight knowing that. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Ooops&#33;

Apologies to any of the chronologically challenged out there. A tad insensitive of me. :ph34r:

Its only Clocker that is that big word you said. :P

Quote:

---

Originally posted by nikita69@21 October 2003 - 15:57
@j2k4

Quote:

---

If you believe GWB is a figurehead with no real power, why are you so supportive of a state of paranoia as to what he might do?

---

I never implied nor asserted to the "state of parania" part. Simply responding to the article.
[end]

In addition what has been said already, I suggest the following remarks by U.S. Senator Robert C. Byrd:
Today I Weep for My Country - I was surprised not to find it on his official site, eventhough that where I originally read it from.
The Truth Will Emerge
The Emperor Has No Clothes
Follow the Money in Iraq
Tell the World the True Cost of War
American Rhetoric Over the Top
Caspian Oil and Natural Gas Export Route Options - This was during a speech for Dick Cheney back in late 80&#39;s, yet the original link ("www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/casproute.html") no longer exists. WHY?

---

I apologize for the "state of paranoia" remark.

Let me simplify, then:

Why is everyone concerned about ole&#39; gunslinger GWB, if he&#39;s just a figurehead, with no power or control?

As to your links, I assume you know nothing more about the Hon. Robert C. Byrd than what you&#39;ve chosen to read?

Should I assume you believe the last link to have been deviously removed by Cheney?

If he is the "vice-president" wouldn&#39;t he likewise be "vice-powerless"?

Do you smell a conspiracy?

Biggles-

I won&#39;t quote your post due to it&#39;s length; I will try to address it as well as I can.

It seems the concensus alights rather heavily on oil as our clumsily and ineffectually cloaked raison d&#39;etre in the mid-east.

For the sake of a paragraph or so worth of blather, let&#39;s say you are right.

If we wanted/needed the oil that badly, why wouldn&#39;t we just barge in and take it, reputation and diplomacy be damned?

We could hardly do worse than we are in the court of world opinion. Why would we have expended such effort or wasted such time in the U.N.?

Really, now-we don&#39;t have to care, so why do we waste time, money, alliances and lives in the effort?

If we went about our "appropriations" baldly and without any pretense whatsoever, could we have possibly damaged our international reputation any further?

I will grant that Saudi Arabia makes, at best, an extremely unctuous (I almost balked at using that word, but, hey, it was next in the rotation :) ) ally in the mid-east, and I am glad to see us stepping in any other direction, but, while it lasted, it offered stability in an otherwise unstable region, and yes, it&#39;s true, the U.S. can&#39;t function without oil. We&#39;re top dog, and we like it that way; we feel our presence in the region lends stability overall, and also allows us to be supportive of Israel. We know the rest of the Arab world would prefer we leave the area (and Israel) so they can get on with fulfilling their religious mandate of wiping out the Jews, but.....oh, nevermind-we&#39;re only there for the oil, and Israel is only an excuse for us to stay.


As for WMD, a quick google will reveal that, as I&#39;ve said, everybody in the whole, wide world believed Saddam had a really nice selection of such toys.
The U.N. Security Council sure believed it, and that includes Schroeder, Chirac, Putin, and a few others.

Although this fact is undeniably true, and reinforced by endless anecdotal evidence provided by Iraqi refugees and international intelligence organizations, it is denounced on it&#39;s face by the same entities who passed 17 U.N. resolutions and sent (or tried to send) untold numbers of inspectors, at tremendous cost, to Iraq to enforce these resolutions they now disavow a need for?

So-the U.S. gets tired of the U.N. twiddling their thumbs, and also of France, which, by virtue of it&#39;s veto power attempts to force the U.S. to twiddle it&#39;s thumbs, too-and acts&#33;

We deduced Saddam would eventually cause trouble for us, our allies, or even our enemies.

Yes, he is getting on in years-so? Had we not ousted him, does anyone doubt Uday and Qusay, together or separately, had a wide enough sadistic streak to carry on in dear old Dad&#39;s name?

Apparently, it was too much of a judgement call for others to make, especially since nobody else had the wherewithal to act in any capacity other than to stand idly by or continue to try to ignore or appease Saddam.

And, now that the deed is done, who&#39;s to say what will happen next in the area?

History would seem to dictate a bad end.

Should we have left the Iraqis to their fate? The rest of you seem to think so.

I don&#39;t.

Sorry-

J2K4

I do agree that it is far more than just oil. I am sorry if I appeared to subscribe to the purely economic determinist argument.

I see the action in Iraq as a much broader policy shift in the ME as a whole. However, I feel the action was presented in such a way to the UK and the US people (and the UN in general) as to create a rod for the backs of the political leaders concerned. This may be due to poor on the ground information or a simple mis-calculation, or perhaps a bit of both.

I did say that moving a general peace process in the ME is a worthy cause in its own right. A Palestinian state living at peace side by side would be a feather in the cap of any leader.

I do have concerns about Iraq and the eventual outcome. I think we equiped and fought for a war rather than a long term peace. I think less bombing and a greater number of troops on the ground would have achieved a better longer term position. However, there is little point in going over that now.

I appreciate that there were a number of comments regarding oil and that your response was general one. I fear my rather long winded attempt was to move the debate onto a broader plane and actually away from merely oil and WMD.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>If we wanted/needed the oil that badly, why wouldn&#39;t we just barge in and take it, reputation and diplomacy be damned?

We could hardly do worse than we are in the court of world opinion. Why would we have expended such effort or wasted such time in the U.N.?

Really, now-we don&#39;t have to care, so why do we waste time, money, alliances and lives in the effort?

If we went about our "appropriations" baldly and without any pretense whatsoever, could we have possibly damaged our international reputation any further?[/b]

---

World opinion, as a whole, does not concern the US, and that probably goes for most countries. It&#39;s their "Allies" they need to be careful about. If the western world turned on the US, the consequences would be huge.


<!--QuoteBegin-Biggles
I do not equate the Afghanistan conflict with the Iraqi one as the background is totally different&nbsp; ....&nbsp; The fact that Russians and US companies would like to put a pipeline through the country is neither here nor there. The Taliban were considering the proposition themselves. [/quote]

The Taliban were put in place by the US for that very reason. I believe the failures in Afghanistan, coupled with the necessity to pull out of Saudi Arabia, forced the hand of the US. As j2 said, ..... while it lasted, it offered stability in an otherwise unstable region, and yes, it&#39;s true, the U.S. can&#39;t function without oil. We&#39;re top dog, and we like it that way; we feel our presence in the region lends stability overall, ...

IMO, this is an energy war, 9&#092;11 was an tragic, but ultimately fortunate event for the US.



Edit: Forgot my smilie.


:)

I feel this is leading to a few questions that I&#39;m going to have to take a bit of time to formulate.

However-

Afghanistan is not the lost cause some of you seem to think.

The U.S. policy is an expedient to save American lives on the ground there, and so critics say the warlords are triumphant.

The warlords, though, operate in fairly territorial fashion, and, while they can certainly be considered a problem, they are not of great overall strategic import; they pose, in the main, difficulties only for each other.

I&#39;m sure the international view of this fact is it constitutes chaos in Afghanistan.

The U.S. view is, "They are peripheral to current foreign policy as re: Afghanistan."

Such are the "economic" pressures when investing American lives-some situations can be left to "solve" themselves.

The Taliban?

It is dead, Billy.

No matter whether you think, as most do with Osama bin Laden and Saddam and whoever else we backed, out of (possibly mis-guided) expedience, it is dead, and we killed it.


Biggles-

Think for a moment of the difficulty of discussing the multi-faceted topic that is the mideast absent the issues of WMD and oil.

&#39;Twould be fascinating-do you think such a conversation would be allowed?

We&#39;d have to charge admission, and employ an "army" of moderators.

Such a conversation could surely escape the rut we currently find ourselves in. :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2
The Taliban?

It is dead, Billy.

---

Try telling my Afghani friends that.


:)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Billy_Dean+22 October 2003 - 09:43--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Billy_Dean &#064; 22 October 2003 - 09:43)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2
The Taliban?

It is dead, Billy.

---

Try telling my Afghani friends that.


:) [/b][/quote]
Okay, then-

Their numbers have dropped to the point of it being strategically expedient to ignore them.

We are still hunting them, but they are not (again, in our estimation)
a decisive factor.

In any case, I empathize with any and all of your Afghani friends, Billy. :(


BTW-Top o&#39;the day to you.

Edit: greeting

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4@22 October 2003 - 23:57
BTW-Top o&#39;the day to you.

---

Why, thank you j2, and top o&#39;the day to you.

One friend of mine has just returned from a trip home. His family, cousins mainly, are still in Kabul, he got his mother out years ago. He tells me the Taliban run the streets of Kabul at night, when the "peacekeepers" are safely locked up in their compounds. Outlying areas are worse. The warlords are nastier than the Taliban, now there are millions of US dollars to be had. He was told the US is negotiating with the warlords over the pipeline, but that they, the warlords, need to prove they have total control over an area before the US will deal with them.



:)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Billy_Dean+22 October 2003 - 10:25--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Billy_Dean &#064; 22 October 2003 - 10:25)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@22 October 2003 - 23:57
BTW-Top o&#39;the day to you.

---

Why, thank you j2, and top o&#39;the day to you.

One friend of mine has just returned from a trip home. His family, cousins mainly, are still in Kabul, he got his mother out years ago. He tells me the Taliban run the streets of Kabul at night, when the "peacekeepers" are safely locked up in their compounds. Outlying areas are worse. The warlords are nastier than the Taliban, now there are millions of US dollars to be had. He was told the US is negotiating with the warlords over the pipeline, but that they, the warlords, need to prove they have total control over an area before the US will deal with them.



:)[/b][/quote]
It seems there is an unfortunate incongruency in situational assessment.

I wish heartily this wasn&#39;t the case.

Would that there were more widespread unification of purpose, and an ability/compulsion to take into account the individual.

Sadly, foreign policy, is, in action, soooooo imperfect. :(

Code:

---

It seems there is an unfortunate incongruency in situational assessment.

---

:huh:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Billy_Dean@22 October 2003 - 10:42

Code:

---

It seems there is an unfortunate incongruency in situational assessment.

---

:huh:

---

Meaning what is good on the one hand is somewhat "less" good on the other. ;)

I must leave now, to tend to my wife&#39;s lunch (she is due home to eat, soon) and some other incredibly important business which bears on my financial well-being.

Edit: excuse for impending (and hopefully short) absence.

:lol: , saudi arabia is next isn&#39;t it? and as soon as that happens, world war 3 between muslims and america, if I&#39;m right (and back me up here), saudi arabia is like the holiest place for islam, right? lets c the odds, more than a billion muslims against say 400 million minus civillians and muslims, that&#39;s like a ratio of 1:0.0000001, but then again, u.s. got them nuclear bombs and wat not. so wait, it&#39;s okay for georgy to have wmd&#39;s and not some other person? i thought it was about "security", if george can have wmd&#39;s, then i should 2 :angry:, for all i noe, israel could be pointing wmd&#39;s at me&#33; that&#39;s wat this whole thing is about. who here can honestly say that israel didn&#39;t have something 2 do wit this iraq incident. isn&#39;t it kinda weird that israel just idly standed by while a war raged on in iraq, iraq being israels enemy and all. dam man, wat&#39;s the story here? oil? puppet goverments? i swear man, i&#39;ll never get this politics crap. boo 2 them all&#33;