The daily WMD question

[plenderj]

So supposedly according to the pro-war people, the US had evidence of where all the weapons were but couldn't tell the UN weapons inspectors because they would just move them.
And then there was also the pathetic excuse that it would put their troops in danger.

So now that you've taken control of the country, why is rumsfeld saying that they now won't find any WMDs in the country ?

[plenderj]

And to echo what HB just posted, the UN weren't allowed any time by the US, but now that the US are running the show they can take a whole year if necessary.

Yes, that's fair.


And on a not entirely unrelated topic :
http://graphics.theonion.com/pics_3914/infograph_3914.jpg

[KayJay]

Originally posted by plenderj
So supposedly according to the pro-war people, the US had evidence of where all the weapons were but couldn't tell the UN weapons inspectors because they would just move them.
And then there was also the pathetic excuse that it would put their troops in danger.

So now that you've taken control of the country, why is rumsfeld saying that they now won't find any WMDs in the country ?

I do not know. Better ask the Offence Secretary himself!

[honeybee]

Originally posted by plenderj
So supposedly according to the pro-war people, the US had evidence of where all the weapons were but couldn't tell the UN weapons inspectors because they would just move them.
And then there was also the pathetic excuse that it would put their troops in danger.

So now that you've taken control of the country, why is rumsfeld saying that they now won't find any WMDs in the country ?

Don't sweat it out. No one from the war-mongers' supporters group is going to answer that. Simply because there ain't no answer, and there ain't no WMDs.

This entire WMD farce underlines what everybody against this war has been afraid of: that the US doesn't give a damn to anything other than its own selfish interests (nope, even logic or reasoning doesn't stand a chance ;) )

I have quoted two articles, one from BBC and one from CNN in my other thread, where the various US officials are saying it could take over a year of searching to conclude whether the WMDs are there or not. So far they have managed to mistake pesticides and other stuff for chemical weapons. Even the soldiers supposedly suffering from chemical reaction were actually dehydrated (and they are the most advanced military in the world!). It all just comes down to the biggest bulls hit and a bunch of liers ruling the world. I am sick of the US.

.

[Memnoch1207]

I'll answer it..Those are 2 misquotes on plenderj's behalf...The US never said it KNEW where any weapons were, they stated they knew of suspected sites....and Rumsfeld never said that.

The actual quote is...

While U.S. military personnel have yet to find chemical, biological or nuclear weapons within Iraq, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said he believes it will take Iraqis coming forward with information before such weapons turn up.

[MasterBlaster]

Originally posted by plenderj
So supposedly according to the pro-war people, the US had evidence of where all the weapons were but couldn't tell the UN weapons inspectors because they would just move them.
And then there was also the pathetic excuse that it would put their troops in danger.

So now that you've taken control of the country, why is rumsfeld saying that they now won't find any WMDs in the country ?

It has only been one month since the war started. Invading, rebuilding, and disarming a regieme dosen't happen over night. Ask yourself this: Is it better to use your resources to restore:
electricity
water purification plants
secure roadways and supply lines for food and medicine
get the hospitals and emergency response teams back in order
build a government and install a police force to avoid anarchy

OR

Screw em, Let em starve and kill each other and devote all resources to find WMD's that probably were sold to terroris organizations, hidden or moved a few hundred times while the US was diking around with the UN


BTW. I am not doubting you but I have not heard Rumsfield say anything related to what you said. Could you point me in the direction of where you heard that please? I am unable to find a hard quote just third party opinions.

[honeybee]

If you only "suspected" about the WMDs and had no concrete evidence, why was your secretary of state wasting his breath in the UN? He should have kept his bloody mouth shut and let the inspectors do the job!

Now the US are doing exactly what the UN inspectors were doing, taking the same amount of time, but managing to take over Iraq in the meanwhile, surely the inspectors would have failed to do that.

.

[Memnoch1207]

Yeah, and Saddam was in control and kicking them out of the country whenever he felt like it...Then Clinton would bomb him and then he would let them back in.

You know a lot of people are against Bush, but the fact is that Clinton deployed troops to fight in conflicts 50 times during his presidency...that's more than any other president in history.

An I sure don't remember anyone protesting that.

[nishantp]

Originally posted by Memnoch1207
Yeah, and Saddam was in control and kicking them out of the country whenever he felt like it...Then Clinton would bomb him and then he would let them back in.

You know a lot of people are against Bush, but the fact is that Clinton deployed troops to fight in conflicts 50 times during his presidency...that's more than any other president in history.

An I sure don't remember anyone protesting that. There were the occasional "We're going to have to keep coming out here until theres no more war in the world" protesters, but nothing like what happened this time. I brought that up in another thread. Its like half the anti-war movement is just liberals getting the chance to conservatives (republicans). Everybody seemed to like Clinton, so no one cared.

And I have to point out, howver many inpectors there were, there are now many more troops. If the troops are going to take a while to find anything, did anyone expect to live to see the day when the inpectors actually found something? On another note, Blix doesn't have the best track record. He's been too concerned with diplomacy in the past to do his job.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2074629/ Its a pre-war article, but it seems important to this "discussion".

[honeybee]

Originally posted by nishantp
And I have to point out, howver many inpectors there were, there are now many more troops. If the troops are going to take a while to find anything, did anyone expect to live to see the day when the inpectors actually found something? On another note, Blix doesn't have the best track record. He's been too concerned with diplomacy in the past to do his job.


It would have been much better and cheaper in all respects to increase the number of inspectors in Iraq. Saying that Blix was too concerned with diplomacy is another way of saying he didn't tow the US line of arguments against Iraq, because he shot down many of the claims made by Powell in his UN address.

.

[honeybee]

Originally posted by nishantp
On another note, Blix doesn't have the best track record. He's been too concerned with diplomacy in the past to do his job.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2074629/ Its a pre-war article, but it seems important to this "discussion".

Interesting article there :)


Either way, the hawks win: If Blix finds weapons or complains of Iraqi non-compliance, that's a "material breach" that will justify war. If Blix finds nothing, the administration can point to his incompetence and go in anyway.

For hawks, the worst-case scenario is actually a strong inspector who, without finding incontrovertible evidence of an Iraqi weapons program, succeeds in convincing large numbers of people that Iraq has been disarmed or at least disarmed enough. That's one reason hawks fear inspections. But luckily for them, Hans Blix doesn't much like inspections either.


It looks like the US actually could prefer Blix to someone else, because by putting Blix in charge, whatever happens, they can get on with the war. With someone else in charge, they run the risk of having to admit that there are no WMDs in Iraq. I wonder if you have thought along that angle.

And if Blix was incompetent in the US' opinion, why didn't the US try and get him replaced by someone else? I have never heard the US opposing the appointment of Blix as the chief weapons inspector.

.

[Arc]

"Suspiciously long extension cord" hahahaha, now that's hillarious:D

[run_GMoney]

Simple answer...we went to war. We won. The war is over. We got our way. It's great to be an American. What else is new?

Is that the argument you're reaching for here?

P.S. The war still happened.

[Maven]

Originally posted by honeybee
Don't sweat it out. No one from the war-mongers' supporters group is going to answer that. Simply because there ain't no answer, and there ain't no WMDs.

This entire WMD farce underlines what everybody against this war has been afraid of: that the US doesn't give a damn to anything other than its own selfish interests (nope, even logic or reasoning doesn't stand a chance ;) )

I have quoted two articles, one from BBC and one from CNN in my other thread, where the various US officials are saying it could take over a year of searching to conclude whether the WMDs are there or not. So far they have managed to mistake pesticides and other stuff for chemical weapons. Even the soldiers supposedly suffering from chemical reaction were actually dehydrated (and they are the most advanced military in the world!). It all just comes down to the biggest bulls hit and a bunch of liers ruling the world. I am sick of the US.

.

If they was so obvous to find then the UN would have went right to them. In the 90's, the UN weapon inspectors seen chemcial weapons, etc that was not destoried. For example, some of the scud missles iraq fired in the war. Also do not forget we seen their troops carring atropene, gas masks, etc which inidcates they had some type of checmial or biological weapon.

I think the war went about as smooth as it could ever go for a war. Very few civilian deaths occured, no chemical weapons were used, etc. I think lots of that is due just because Saddam treated his people so bad. I mean they put up hardly no fight at all.

I really feel sorry for those people over there. They was yelling into a well thinking that they heard lost love ones in there and was convinced that saddam and put them in there. =/

Anyway I think they'll find those weapons in due time. He may have sent them to another country, who knows! But in the end I'm very sure he had them as weapons inspectors seen them in the 90's. I really don't think the magical elf from a land far away stole them and dissappeared either. But if you would rather belive the info that comes from the Saddam regime so be it.

How would the information minister have put it?: The USA infedels isn't in Iraq, their is no war! Its all one big lie, don't believe everything you read on the internet!

[Shaggy Hiker]

What are the 50 conflicts Clinton sent troops to fight in? I can think of a few (Bosnia, Serbia), but what are the others? I have a suspicion that that's a bogus statistic padded for political purpose by including things that no rational person would include.

However, who else had the chance? How many presidents have served two full terms since WWII (note that prior to WWII America had no large standing army, only a very small one). There was Reagan...and who? With cold war politics extending from the end of WWII up into Reagans second term, I doubt any president had the opportunity, but I still can't think of 50 during Clintons terms.

You should be right that he sent the most, but I think the number is far too high. I would really like to see that list if you could spare the time.

[MerrionComputin]

Reagan ordered the invasion of Grenada. Fortunately the UK didn't respond to this invasion in the same way they responded to Argentina invading the Falklands.

[simonm]

Maybe this will asnwer some of your questions:
CCN News (http://www.fair.org/*************s/kamel.html)
Inspectors were told "that after the Gulf War, Iraq destroyed all its chemical and biological weapons stocks and the missiles to deliver them," Barry wrote. All that remained ere "hidden blueprints, computer disks, microfiches" and production molds. The weapons were destroyed secretly, in order to hide their existence from inspectors, in the hopes of someday resuming production after inspections had finished. The CIA and MI6 were told the same story, Barry reported, and "a military aide who defected with Kamel... backed Kamel's assertions about the destruction of WMD stocks."
It seems that finding WMD's is unlikely. But what is clear is that Iraq was just waiting for the opportunity to resume their programme of contruction.

If this is true, what other choice was there other than to depose the regime that was set on building such weapons?

[plenderj]

There are a lot of regimes that do actively build and research those weapons.

[simonm]

There are a lot of regimes that do actively build and research those weapons.
Yes, but not many have a host of UN resolutions explicitly forbidding such activity.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Iraq would not have had the restrictions forever. This goes back to an earlier point I made. The weapons themselves are the easy part, relatively (this is not true for nuclear), the difficult part is the know-how to manufacture them. Destroying the weapons is of limitted value when you leave the knowledge in place, and removing the knowledge is something that even Bush (hopefully) would balk at. We were going after the easier target.