Quote:
We know that, at one time or other, he was either developing or producing or using such weapons. Back in 1981, the Israelis bombed an Iraqi nuclear facility, to the loud condemnation of many nations. But, without that pre-emptive strike, the outcome of both Gulf wars could have been tragically different.
True, but with a lot of spin here..
Iraq was upfront and was conforming to all International Laws and International Monitoring when it was building the power station.
Israel bombed a sovereign country it was not at war with.
At the time, and to this day, Israel had developed and was producing its own Nukes. It does not allow International Monitoring, and still "Officially" doesnt have any.
It's also sold this technology to countries the rest of the world refused to under non-proliferation treaties (South Africa comes to mind, before the change)... and doesnt even get a slap on the wrist.
It also sold American Military technology that it had aquired, to places that the USA would rather not have it... again, without even a slap on the wrist.
In conclusion:
It was openly, and with full International Monitoring building a Power Station. It's never been known to sell the technology under non-proliferation treaties... however its lauded that a country that has done both, bombed the crap out of it 20 years ago.
Quote:
Saddam Hussein not only had, but used, chemical and biological weapons against his enemies, foreign and domestic. With the help of the French, he was rebuilding nuclear facilities, ostensibly for civilian energy purposes, but oil-rich countries do not need nuclear power plants to generate electricity.
Its never been denied that he has had and used Chemical weapons prior to the Gulf War, its also widely suspected that both Iran and Iraq used Biological Weapons during their war with each other.
If your going to use this as "evidence" then why isnt the author also pointing out that, just about every country in WWI has has used Chemical Weapons on their enemies? The UK, if you class Palestine as "Domestic" in the 1930's, also used it on "Domestic Enemies".
The USA used them in Vietnam, together with other very nasty "Illegal" stuff under International Laws.
I nearly laughed my Ass off at "Oil Rich Countries do not need...". No One NEEDS Nuclear Power Stations. The USA is an "Oil Rich Country", the UK is an "Oil Rich" country...we both have them.
Any country that relies on Oil Powered Electricity Generators is asking for trouble these days... in case you havent noticed, we only have 20-30 years worth of the stuff left at current demand. It would be a bloody stupid Government to not look 20 years into the future for its possible power demands.
I notice that the author forgets to mention the fact that the type of power station they were talking about cannot be used for Nuclear Weapons grade Uranium/Plutonium...slight oversight perhaps? Hell, he never even scraped up the old "Nuclear Research" stuff he'd buried in 1991...as it was useless to him with this type of station. He also neglected to ask his Nuclear Scientists to start working again.
. but hey, its spin, lets leave some stuff out....
Quote:
More than a decade of playing cat-and-mouse with international weapons inspectors raised more and more suspicions about Iraq's weapons programs, and various nations' intelligence services reported that in fact he was back to his old tricks and developing weapons of mass destruction that could pose a major threat.
I'll admit he did not co-operate with the original Inspectors. Well, he did sort off...but he refused to make it easy for them, and left himself open to the accusations levelled.
However, the 2nd lot of inspectors reported that Iraq even made suggestions on how they could verify what was told to the UN on what had been destroyed, and the technology that could have cleared it all up was blocked by US/UK.
They co-operated with the Inspectors, it was the coalition that didnt.
As to the "Intelligence" of other nations. He neglects to mention that Britain has admitted that its Intelligence was incorrect and Blair has taken full responsibility for that (Half of the yapping @ Bush would probably go away if he was man enough to do this... take responsibility. I cant stand Blaire, but at least he was man enough to do that)
If you ask the Intelligence Agencies to "Find Evidence of XXX" they will... that is not the same as looking at the intelligence as a whole to decide what is happening. The 1st way ensures that every little bit of Gossip and Rumour, much from people with a lot to gain by a particular course of action, suddenly becomes "Intelligence". Anything contrary to this innuendo is conveniantly not looked at.. as its not what you were asked for.
The Russians BTW, did not say he had a WMD program until fairly recently... so the author is actually mistaken to say "Bush was Last" to say it.
Again, clever bit of spin... but that one includes an error, whether mistakenly or on purpose. Makes Bush look good, so you decide.
[quote]There is already photographic evidence of a massive dismantling of a facility of some sort before last year's invasion. These photos were published on the front page of the New York Times. Whether or not that particular building was producing weapons of mass destruction, it shows that Saddam Hussein saw the need to get rid of some things before they got captured.
[QUOTE]
OK.
So let me get this straight....
Hes told to dismantle stuff... and the author is taking this as evidence he had something to hide when he complies.
Well Saddam is totally fucked then isnt he?
On the one hand he "isnt complying" and on the other "He is complying so he has something to hide"... way to go. I Guess we can all see who shouldnt be on his Jury then....
Quote:
Nations do not wait for iron-clad proof when there are lethal threats. The massive Manhattan Project that produced the first atomic bomb was begun when the United States was at peace because of reports that Hitler's scientists were working on such a weapon.
We had no proof -- and, after Germany surrendered, it turned out that Hitler's atomic bomb project was nowhere near the stage that we feared. But we couldn't take that chance.
The Manhatten Project commenced in 1942, Pearl Harbour was in 1941..You do the math.
It also appears to imply the project was wholley American. It wasnt... theres a reason Britain got the Bomb too.
Quote:
People who talk glibly about "intelligence failure" act as if intelligence agencies that are doing their job right would know everything. But intelligence-gathering has always been a chancy business. In a nuclear age, the only thing that makes sense is to fail safe -- and strike pre-emptively, if necessary. If that offends people who think and talk in abstract terms about international law, then it is better that they be offended than that we wake up some morning and find New York or Chicago in radioactive ruins.
This is the firts thing he said that is wholley and indisbutably true.
"People who talk glibly about "intelligence failure" act as if intelligence agencies that are doing their job right would know everything. But intelligence-gathering has always been a chancy business."
However, Intelligence can only work if its used properly.
As I said earlier; if you ask for Intelligence on something, then all the information needs to be looked at and analysed and weighed against each other. You will find lots of conflicting evidence going lots of different ways.
If you reduce this to "Find evidence that X is involved in Y", or "X is doing Z"... then that is all you will get back. The Gossip and useless stuff too, without the weighing of evidence against what you want.
It reduces the Intelligence Agencies to nothing more than a Rumour Mill and Gossip College.
As an example;
If you ask the Intel Agencies for evidence that the US plans to attack Russia, you will find plenty of it. We have had War Games like everyone else, contingency plans in place for Decades. Nukes aimed etc etc etc
If you simply ask the question "Is the US going to attack Russia?", then the answer would be a simple "No".
Quote:
Iran and North Korea -- the other nations identified as part of the "axis of evil" -- are now playing the same cat-and-mouse game, and North Korea is openly threatening to produce nuclear bombs. Either or both these countries are potential suppliers of such weapons to international terrorists.
Iran was making overtures into re-joining the International Community, before that stupid speech about the "Axis of Evil". All that did was make them withdraw again... way to go. As full members of the International Community, we would have a lot more influence.
And lets see, exactly when did Iran start to look into Nuclear Weapons? After it was plain that the Coalition was going to attack Iraq no matter what, and it was also named... again, way to go.
Before this, it was a fully co-operative State as far as the IAEA is concerned <_<
This suggests it feels the need for a defence against someone?
North Korea: Ive always said this was a problem. However I dont think USA is the one to handle this particular one.. I think China is in a much better position to sort out North Korea.
Strange the author misses out Israel, Pakistan, South Africa and India... none of whom are even signatories of the non-proliferation treaty.
Its Pakistan that sold Iran the technology for its Enrichment program.
Its Israel that passed the technology to South Africa.
ie: The only 2 countries to openly sell the technology and spread it around, appear to be OK to do this...
Quote:
Libya backed out of the nuclear weapons game after Qadaffi saw what happened to Saddam Hussein in Iraq. What would have emboldened Iran and North Korea? Only a disunited America, full of loud irresponsible election-year talk about "lies" on weapons of mass destruction, making it unlikely that the United States can muster the political will to strike Iran or North Korea.
Oh, please.
Libya has been making overtures for 10 years that it wants to re-join the International Community. Its known the price too.
It started paying that price before Iraq was even on the table.
The process started with the handing over of the guys that committed the Lockerbie bombing ffs, and has continued steadily since then.
To try and link Libya with all of this requires a huge "Leap of Faith", everyone else appears to have gone the opposite way and started developing the bloody things... coz they dont feel safe any more.
I wonder why?
The whole artical is designed to move the reader in one direction, giving some facts and implication... its spin, pure and simple.
