No WMD - how to break the bad (political) news?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by toontra, Nov 23, 2003.

  1. toontra macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2003
    Location:
    London UK
    #1
    An interesting doc on BBC (panorama) tonight. A reporter who was in Iraq before the war re-visits & follows the IRG for a few days.
    There is lo longer talk of WMD, or even programs for their production, but only of a few very minor breaches of UN 1441 regarding disclosure.
    David Kay was interviewed at length and seems prepared to admit he was wrong in his assumption that WMD existed.
    Hand Blix predicts that the US will stall the final report for as long as possible, then manufacture some controversy in order to cloud what appears to be the inevitable findings - there were no WMD.
     
  2. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #2
    WMDs are going the way of Osama bin Ladin. The administration is now talking down bin Ladiin's importance in the theater of international terrorism. Two years ago, he was "wanted dead or alive," now he's being termed a marginalized figure. If Saddam isn't captured or killed pretty soon, expect the same minimization of his importance as well. The administration's story on this and other issues changes to suit the circumstances. Sadly, in the Bush White House, there is no more abiding principle then politics. Everything they do and say can be understood in light of the election.
     
  3. toontra thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2003
    Location:
    London UK
    #3
    Yes, it's amazing how quickly the US tune has changed. The documentary also contained the now infamous clip of Colin Powell's speech of 2000 where he states that Iraq didn't possess any significant WMD and wasn't a threat to the west.

    This starkly contrasted with many other sound-bites shown from Powell, Bush & Blair from 2002 & 3 in which they categorically assert that not only did Iraq have WMD in significant quantities, but they knew them to be ramping up production. As we now know, they cannot possibly have known this. The rhetoric was designed to scare and mislead.
     
  4. toontra thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2003
    Location:
    London UK
    #5
    That's right. Hamza, along with other dissidents, was listed to far too closely and his claims went largely unchallenged.

    The reason these uncorroborated claims were promoted is because they were saying what the WH wanted to hear. This resulted in the public being presented with absurd statements about WMD which were claimed to be the result of the best intelligence when, in fact, they were the result of a few self-interested liars, subsequently endorsed by the WH.

    Why people like Hamza haven't been completely ditched, possibly even prosecuted, by the US speaks volumes about the deceit and complicity of the WH in this whole issue.
     
  5. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #6
    dont be so quick to bury your heads in the sand, we know he had WMDs now where did the stuff all go? its been hidden just as Saddam.
     
  6. toontra thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2003
    Location:
    London UK
    #7
    Ha - that's rich! Who's burying their heads in the sand. You have no evidence of Iraq possessing WMD as was suggested pre-war.

    Do you read threads before posting or merely fire off inflammatory propaganda regardless?
     
  7. Inu macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 5, 2003
    #8
    Well, given its got a really short shelf span (compared to normal or nuclear (wich he never had) weapons), they might hide it all they want - if they dont produce them, they cant use them. At least not several years later.
     
  8. yamabushi macrumors 65816

    yamabushi

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2003
    #9
    Some chemical and biological weapons have a very long shelf life. If a relatively small amount was kept in reserve the entire stockpile might fit inside a single family home. Such a stockpile would be capable of killing at least millions if not billions of people with fairly uncomplicated delivery devices. Certain biological weapons would be capable of killing the largest number of people, but are very difficult to control. I suspect that the majority of his arsenal was chemical weapons since they would be much easier to control.
     
  9. Inu macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 5, 2003
    #10
    In a single family home...
    Millions if not Billions of people...
    Fairly uncomplicated...

    You have no clue about WOMD's do you?
     
  10. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #11
    IIRC, during the anthrax scare, I heard that anthrax spores can still be hazardous after several decades. Some stuff breaks down and is inneffective much faster.

    But the fact that we are now worried that we may have inadvertantly spread WMDs around the Middle East should worry the Bush administration, as they will face intense criticism if the invasion is seen as the reason those weapons went a-walking. Saddam had little incentive to give WMDs to anyone else, which is why containment was a viable strategy. Of course that would mean we would have to refrain from things like giving Saddam the green light to invade Kuwait.

    And regardless of that, when you ask "Where did they go" as a means of dismissing your opponents arguements, you are the one responsible for producing proof. Bush may not have had it explained to him, but proving a negative is not possible.
     
  11. toontra thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2003
    Location:
    London UK
    #12
    That's been the problem all along. Iraq was asked to prove it didn't have WMD. Contrived this way, Sadam was damned from the start. No declarations from him would have convinced the US and UK because they had already decided to invade by summer 2002.

    That is why I felt so bad about the whole episode of UN 1441 and the subsequent inspections. It was all a grotesque sham - a fig leaf on the ambition of those pursuing war for their own ends.

    Most of the world listened to the UN reports, heard the arguments on both sides and concluded that war wasn't justified. It's those that came to a different conclusion who need to explain and justify their actions, and with no WMD (or even programs) being found, it's hard to see what they will be.
     
  12. huntsman, Nov 25, 2003
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 15, 2013

    huntsman macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2003
    Location:
    Australia
    #13
    This echoes the speculation by Norman Mailer on what would happen to Iraq's WMD should America go to war.

    [Admin note: Link to speech on personal site deleted at OP's request.]

    There are also a few speeches by Scott Ritter delivered prior to the war which, IMHO, give the best overview of inspections and Iraq's WMD in layman's terms. And assuming Mailer's speculation is just that, it turns out that Ritter's comments gave a more accurate representation of the WMD situation in Iraq than anything else I'd heard (although his predictions of massive US casualties in the streets of Baghdad have proved false). Audio can be found here:

    http://traprockpeace.org/recorder101602.html
    http://www.sass.caltech.edu/events/ritter.shtml
    http://sandiego.indymedia.org/en/2002/12/3315.shtml
     
  13. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #14
    thats the truth of it, or a hidden bunker anywhere, anyways he used the crap on his own people, where did the leftovers go? and yes this stuff can last for a long long time if its sealed. funny how so many can ignore recent history, anyways they havent found Saddam, and the only way they would find this stuff would be to stumble upon it, and i guess thats the only way they are going to get Saddam and Binladin.
     
  14. SPG macrumors 65816

    SPG

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2001
    Location:
    In the shadow of the Space Needle.
    #15
    It's a tough step to take to realize that your leaders are misleading you. It's like suddenly realizing that your parents have been abusive liars who weren't looking out for you. It's a tough pill to swallow, but when it's true you have to accept it and then move on in a direction that will be good for both you and them. Keep burying your head in the sand and you will keep getting abused.
     
  15. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #16
    should we spill the beans about santa, too?
     
  16. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #17
    Never proven. Never claimed except in anti-Saddam revision. Probably not true.

    Certain bioweapons can often last for a long time, but most of the chemical weapons Saddam was using against Iran were short-lived types such as mustard gas.
     
  17. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #18
    DID he use it on his own people? I wonder.
    link
     

Share This Page