Re: The line by line

Post #106,394 by JayMehaffey 6/17/03 8:25:33 PM Reply	Re: The line by line How many of Sadaam's WMDs did the UN team account for? How long would it take them to account for all of them? What are the chances Sadaam wouldn't throw them out again once the focus was on something else? How can the inspectors account for something that doesn't exist? Some of what the inspectors where investigating where inconsitancies in Iraqi records, where one would say they used 11,000 bombs and another would say they used 9,000. If that is just an error in records that where now 10+ years old, it's going to be real hard to fix a firm conclusion either way ever. Taken literally, the standard that Saddam must prove he doesn't have WMDs is impossible. Oh, and Saddam didn't throw the inspectors out, they left to avoid getting bombed. We do know there was a terrorist camp in northern Iraq. We also know terrorists had taken refuge in Iraq. You admit to his meetings with al Qaeda. Are you saying Sadaam would not try to slip some of his WMDs to terrorists who would like to use them against the US for fear of the US; but it was worth risking his death to refuse to account for his WMDs? Consider it from Saddam's perspective for a moment. If he admits he has weapons of WMD, the US would use that as a pretext to invades. If he says he doesn't and the UN inspectors say they didn't find any the US uses the refusal to come clean as a pretext to invade. For Saddam, the only real hope was dragging the inpection process on long enough for American interest to wander, this is true no matter if he had any WMDs or not. Remember operation Desert Fox? If I remember correctly, this was after the inspecters where thrown out of Iraq in 1998: And where in that article does it talk about the non-UN intelligence being used by Clinton? Heck, those air strikes may not have been against suspected WMD sites all. The real goal was to intimidate Saddam into removing restrictions he has placed on how the inspectors could operate and where they could go. It ended up failing, in large part because the spy scandle hit and the US didn't want to press the issue. Jay
Post #106,446 by johnu 6/18/03 1:42:15 PM Reply	Round and round How can the inspectors account for something that doesn't exist? This idea that Iraq's WMDs don't exist is hard for me to understand. We know they had biological and chemical weapons and quite a bit was unaccounted for when the inspectors left in 98([link\|http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/un/981008.htm\|UN report from 98]). I don't know of any solid evidence that the disposition of all those unaccounted for items has been found. The other thing that's hard for me to understand is this idea that Bush lied and made up the whole WMD thing. There's plenty of others who believed Iraq still had them (including a number of high profile Democrats). A quick search on google brought up the following links containing evidence Iraq could still have WMDs: [link\|http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iraq/leitenberg.html\|http://www.isis-onli...q/leitenberg.html] [link\|http://cns.miis.edu/research/wmdme/iraq.htm\|http://cns.miis.edu/...ch/wmdme/iraq.htm] [link\|http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2180237.stm\|http://news.bbc.co.u..._news/2180237.stm] [link\|http://www.ceip.org/files/projects/npp/pdf/Iraq/factsheet/Iraq-ChemBioFactSheet.pdf\|http://www.ceip.org/...mBioFactSheet.pdf] [link\|http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1996/cbiac_apr96.htm\|http://www.fas.org/n...6/cbiac_apr96.htm] [link\|http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/bw-unscom.htm\|http://www.globalsec...raq/bw-unscom.htm] [link\|http://whyfiles.org/059bio_war/basics.html\|http://whyfiles.org/...o_war/basics.html] [link\|http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iraq/\|http://www.isis-onli...ublications/iraq/] [link\|http://www.nci.org/sadb.htm\|http://www.nci.org/sadb.htm] Oh, and Saddam didn't throw the inspectors out, they left to avoid getting bombed. You are correct. My memory was faulty on that one. --------- We can go round and round on this a long time. In the end, we'll never know the truth until we have solid evidence of the exact disposition of those WMDs. You can have the last word... Regards, John
Post #106,489 by Silverlock 6/18/03 9:07:23 PM Reply	Once again An "imminent threat" did not exist no matter how it was trumpeted. Bush lied. Thousands died. ----------------------------------------- [link\|http://www.talion.com/questionw.html\|?W] Where were you in 72?
Post #106,509 by mhuber 6/19/03 12:54:35 AM Reply	We have solid evidence Bush claimed there was substantial credible intelligence of WMD sufficient to pose a real threat to the US. How credible is intelligence with no hint of location? Granted, a piece or two of credible intelligence may appear that lacks geographic references, but for the most part, credible intelligence is credible because it identifies places, names, objects, that can be verified either physicaly or by cross-checking with other intelligence. You would have to be a 21'st century "journalist" to bet on a source that can't be checked up on. You don't bet billions of dollars worth of equipment and the lives of US military people on unsubstantiated rumors. And in order to substantiate, you need places, names, and objects. You don't honestly do that on the basis of not having records that don't balance regarding weapons that, if unmaintained, are unusable. I've worked for far less unreasonable bosses than Saddam, and the fact that he ordered the weapons destroyed would not have protected those who destroyed them from his wrath. It is quite possible that the weapons were destroyed and those responsible simply didn't want to expose themselves by reporting it. Or the records could be off due to errors. Once you have that intelligence, and free run of the country, and no need to continue to protect sources now that the threat is neutralized, you go in and you find it (well, no, "find" is the wrong word - you know where it is, maybe "get" is the word) and take care of it. We are talking about substantial weapons programs - chemicals, biological agents is quantity. Not the One Ring or something else tiny. Big, nasty stuff that is real hard to clean up. Not as big as a similar conventional weapons program, but much harder to clean up. And if we have reliable, credible intelligence, we know where at least some of it was at some point, because otherwise we don't have any way of either cross-checking the stories or getting some physical observations from sattelite or arial surveilance. If it was all mobile, reliable, credible intelligence would have warned us of that fact. Without cross-checking or physical observation, all you have is rumors. There was a lie. Was it that the intelligence existed? Was it that it was credible? Was the intelligence an elaborate web of cross-checked lies that fooled the Bush team? The absense of evidence is not evidence of absence - there may be a substantial WMD program. But I'm not saying there wasn't - I'm saying that Bush lied about having reliable, credible intelligence about one. The evidence of a campaign of lies is far more solid than the evidence of a substantial WMD program. As the Bush campaign was fond of pointing out, lies are a bad thing. ---- Sometime you the windshield, sometime you the bug...
Post #106,802 by deSitter 6/21/03 1:03:00 PM Reply	Re: We have solid evidence Bush is too stupid to blame. The blame lies with the puppetmasters. -drl
Post #106,803 by mhuber 6/21/03 1:10:19 PM Reply	I don't mean Bush the organism I mean Bush the figurehead. Kind of like saying "The Crown", when you aren't referring to a piece of headwear. ---- Sometime you the windshield, sometime you the bug...

Welcome to IWETHEY!