Okay, WTF are the WMDs?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by LethalWolfe, Sep 15, 2003.

  1. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #1
    Back in Feb or March I told nay-sayers to be patient and that it would take time to comb a country the size of Iraq for WMD. I also said that if in 6 months nothing gets turned up I'd started a thread asking where the WMD's are. And, well, here I am. I backed GWB, I backed the war, and I'm slightly irritated that, for me, the only justifiable cause for the invasion of Iraq (WMD's and the associated UN violations) have yet to be unearthed.

    I made a promise and here I am.


    Lethal
     
  2. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #2
    And here I am, someone who did not support GWB, and was very skeptical of the WMD claims and rhetoric leading up to the war.

    I have to respect your willingness to at least now consider the possibility that GWB lied to you at worst, or at best, spun very, very, very weak facts to look like there was an immediate threat that had to be dealt with.
     
  3. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #3
    I'm sure there's a meth lab, or someone with a bleach-ammonia combo in their cleaning supplies Dubya could point to. Heck they sell ciggarettes there, those could be chemical weapons.:D

    Lethal, I appreciate your candid and timely return on this issue. I just wish others were open minded enough to realize that polititians need to be held to their statements, and that shifting the issue to one of human rights is disingenuous.
     
  4. toontra macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2003
    Location:
    London UK
    #4
    Wolfe,

    I appreciate your re-evaluation of the basis for the war with Iraq. It's not often that people admit that they might have been wrong!

    Blair and Bush misled their citizens, simple as that. For what reason is debatable, and whether they will have to pay for their deceit is not yet clear.

    Personally, as a former supporter of Blair, I am now totally disillusioned with this government. Millions of people demonstrated on the streets this year saying the evidence for war was not sufficient. Blair chose not to listen. They have been vindicated. He has been proven a liar.
     
  5. kuyu macrumors 6502a

    kuyu

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    Louisville
    #5
    In 1995 Saddam's nephew and son-in-law (same guy) defected to Iran. His job was the equivalent of Colin Powell's here. Uday discovered that he had been exagerating the price of Iraq's military weapons to fill his own pockets. While in Iran he spilled the beans on Iraq to the US about WMD's. CIA satellite imagery verified most of what he said. After a few weeks he was convinced to come back to Iraq. Saddam's daughter was ordered to sign divorce papers, and the "traitor" was brought back into Iraq. Once there, he engaged Uday and company in a lengthy shoot out from inside a building. Eventually Uday and company killed him, then filled his dead body with clip after clip of machine gun fire. They videotaped the whole thing to show Saddam.

    We know there were WMD's in 1995, but they're gone now? I guess they did have 8 years to sell them to the highest bidder.
     
  6. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #6
    I believe I commented long ago that the focus on WMDs was a mistake; I believed long ago that even without them there was sufficient reason to take out Saddam's regime. Even without the never-followed UN Resolutions, Bosnia and Serbia set the precedent. And the fact that we haven't done likewise in some of the African equivalents is beside the point...

    There are three legs on the WMD tripod. We know that Saddam had at least two of the legs stockpiled at one time. The problem with chemical and biological weapons is that having a stockpile isn't all that important. The time required to produce more is relatively small. The knowledge of "how to" is more important than the equipment, but the next problem is that legitimate equipment can be used for preparation of chem/bio weaponry. Nerve gas is but a variant of pesticides. Any medical laboratory can quickly shift from benevolent efforts to production of disease germs.

    The nukes have always been problematical, although we know he bought materiel, technology and expertise from various European countries and Russia. While high-quality nuclear devices require an expensive, complex technology, the requirements for low-yield devices are fairly easily met by use of the resources of an entire country--particularly when a country such as France has been a willing business partner.

    So I'm back to my position that the right thing got done, but some dumb PR was used to garner political/public support.

    'Rat
     
  7. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #7
    Saddam had no reason to sell chemical and bio weapons to anyone. He was already diverting enough of his country's oil revenue into his own pockets and those his family and cronies to make everyone fat and happy. Among all the charges leveled at Saddam, I've never heard a single suggestion that Iraq had become a weapons exporter. Chem and bio weapons have a limited shelf-life. Chances are, whatever WMDs Saddam had (probably not nearly as much as our intelligence concluded) were used against his political and military opponents, and the rest became ineffective over time.
     
  8. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #8
    Problem is, of the 3 legs, the C and the B are not considered strategic weapons. Only the nuclear leg was justification using the National Security reason. Chem and bio are tactical weapons, but most military analysts would tell you that they aren't a threat to our national security.

    And FWIW, I agree we did the right thing in Iraq for all the wrong reasons. Problem is I see those wrong reasons messing up the right thing that we did.
     
  9. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #9
    No real argument, there, mac.

    Odd-funny: Of all the information that's come out from Iraq since the start of the war, one thing really startled the heck out of me: The fact that the oilfield infrastructure was in such poor shape. The productive capability before the war was, apparently, less than half of what was allowed under the UN sanctions.

    That's $25 million a freakin' DAY! For YEARS!

    Weird.

    'Rat
     
  10. vniow macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    I accidentally my whole location.
    #10
  11. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #11
    Shortly after Wolfowitz (I believe it was) first made the claim that Iraq's reconstruction could be financed out of oil revenue, an article appeared in the LA Times saying essentially that it wasn't bloody likely. I posted the article here, if memory serves, and it was dismissed by several as just more Bush-bashing liberal tripe from the Times.
     
  12. SPG macrumors 65816

    SPG

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2001
    Location:
    In the shadow of the Space Needle.
    #12
    The Kay report that was promised for mid september release has now been delayed indefinitely (read never to be released, let alone completed) because no WMD's have been found and even proof of WMD programs has not been found.

    kuyu, there have been many defectors from Iraq over the years and many of them had said that there are WMD's and many have said the programs and weapons were gone. Often defector's claims would cancel each other out and both claim the other was misinformed or lying. The reliability and knowledge of both the "has" and "has not" claims were in serious doubt. It was suspected that some were fed little bits of false information while in Iraq that they believed to be true when repeated to the CIA. Short of physical evidence these claims that there were WMD's just don't hold up. In the early '90s we knew for a fact that there were WMD's and programs in place to produce more. There were two reasons that we knew. First, we sold them many of the weapons! Second is that after the first Gulf War the UN inspectors found them and destroyed them. Say it with me, The UN found them and destroyed them.
    Remember the massive cruise missile and bomber attack of 1998? That was supposed to take out any remnants of a WMD program. From what we know now, it was good enough to shut down the whole thing and keep Saddam from trying again. So after all that how much could be left? How much could be reconstituted undetected with daily overflights, satelite intel, and spies?
    Conventional wisdom should have indicated that Iraq could not have posed a threat to the US.
    However there is another reason to invade Iraq as stated by the PNAC, which is to establish an Israel friendly state in the Middle East and to provide the US a better basing opportunity than Saudi Arabia (incidentaly the US bases in Saudi Arabia were one of Bin Laden's stated reasons for attacking the US). So we have a motive for the neo conservatives to invade Iraq. Let's add fuel to that fire with Ahmed Chalabi, who wants to run a post Saddam Iraq, providing bogus intel claiming all sorts of WMD capability.
    Could you imagine an interest in moving Air Force bases and creating an ally to Israel being enough to get our country to back a war? Of course not, and that's why it didn't happen between 1991 and 2003. But guess what happens post 9/11? The citizens of this country are scared, W doesn't like Saddam, PNAC members are in all the right cabinet positions, Chalabi is pumping up the bogus WMD claims and the White House then starts to reinterpret the intel that mostly said no serious threat from Iraq to just read the parts that fit it's goal. And so the nation slid down the slippery slope to find itself in the muddy quagmire at the bottom wondering where the WMD's are.
     
  13. 3rdpath macrumors 68000

    3rdpath

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Location:
    2nd star on the right and straight till morning
    #13
    cheers to you lethal...just for being open-minded.

    obviously this administration truly believed that the wmd existed...even to the point of showing satellite pictures of plants/stockpiles etc. i really have to question how our intelligence(ironic name, huh?) could be so incorrect.

    or maybe the administration was just going to find the "proof" they needed...regardless of the actual facts. it's a pretty normal human tendency to see the basis for our beliefs when justifying our actions....though you'd hope the friggin government would be objective enough to overcome emotional/pavlovian responses.

    anyone else hear cheney on meet the press? i was amused( i'm just too old to get incensed...) by his whole "everything is going as planned" song and dance. he even stated matter-of-factly that we had recovered 2 mobile bio labs...that's news to me. and probably news to the many journalists/chemical experts who have written that the 2 trucks were NOT bio labs.

    wmd, my arse...

    follow the money( or oil in this case...)
     
  14. toontra macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2003
    Location:
    London UK
    #14
    3rdpath,

    When was Cheney on Meet the Press - was this recently?
     
  15. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #15
    He was on this past Sunday... for the hour.
     
  16. toontra macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2003
    Location:
    London UK
    #16
    And he was talking about finding 2 mobile bio labs? You are joking! Tell me you're joking!

    This has been PROVED to be untrue. How the hell can he carry on this stance in the face of ALL the evidence.

    This goes beyond interpretation or spin. This is out-and-out lying. Why the heck don't your journalists pull people like Cheyney up on crap like this. In the UK, no matter how flawed our media, politicians simply wouldn't get away with this kind of thing. If they're caught out on a straight lie they would be hounded mercilessly!
     
  17. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #17
    Rummy now sees no link between 9-11 and Iraq.

     
  18. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #18
    Re: Re: Okay, WTF are the WMDs?

    I actually remembered it being October and was going to hold him to it myself.

    I guess 5 1/2 months and an ABC report confirming it was enough though:

    * There are no WMD.

    * There were no WMD (in 2003).

    * Saddam was not a threat to the US or its interests.

    * Bush and his administration lied to the American people, the UN and the world, using a systematic effort of fraud and deceit and using all the tools and people available to him.

    * He led the US to a war based on false pretenses. We have agreed to and perpetrated the ultimate sin: an unjust war. Murder multiplied.

    * He needs to be held accountable for his lies and his actions be it in a Congressional investigation or at the polls in 2004. Preferably both.

    P.S. Good on you, Lethal, for having the balls to admit when you were wrong. I hope that you and all the others whose main objection in March was "give it time" remember that the war was a sham next November.
     
  19. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #19
    Here's what Cheney said on Sunday to Tim Russert on Meet the Press when asked about WMDs

    Transcript

    (emphasis mine)

    I'd like to see them brought out for inspection.
     
  20. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #20
    Cheney is a liar.

    A goddamned liar.

    This is to the Lewinski scandal as a murder conspiracy is to a speeding ticket.
     
  21. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #21
    Oh there's lots of good stuff in that transcript. Here's another gem:
     
  22. LethalWolfe thread starter macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #22
    Re: Re: Okay, WTF are the WMDs?


    Yeah, I couldn't remember if it was Sept or Oct and I was too lazy to go back and confirm it. :)


    Lethal

    EDIT: I don't know if Bush/the adminstration was out-and-out lying, but I definetly think they were seeing what they wanted to see and acted accordingly. I feel that way a lot regarding the current president. Almost like a father who wants the best for his kids, thinks he knows what's best for them and acts accordingly. And instead of helping his kids he is actually hurting/hindering them.
     
  23. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #23
    Re: Okay, WTF are the WMDs?

    cool. just two days ago i was trying to remember when your 6 months started.

    "irritated" is a good start ;-)
     
  24. LethalWolfe thread starter macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #24
    Re: Re: Okay, WTF are the WMDs?


    Damn, I'm surprised so many people remember what I said. Okay, 3 isn't exactly a lot of people but it's more than I thought would remember my "6 months" ultimatum<sp?>.


    Lethal
     
  25. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #25
    Re: Re: Re: Okay, WTF are the WMDs?

    there weren't a lot of pro-invasion folk who left themselves any wiggle room.

    and when i say "not a lot", i mean "one".
     

Share This Page