IMHO: The truth about Iraq's WMDs
-
Dave Huff wrote: . Those opposing the war now say that the WMDs never existed. By that logic it also make sense that Saddam never existed?? yeah... but saddam doesnt leave radioactive radiations behind which the hi-tech detections devices can find...
No but he did leave behind mass graves full of those who disagreed with him. WMD or not, Saddam needed to be removed from power. He was as they say, the bad guy. BBC news report[^] Michael 'War is at best barbarism...Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation. War is hell.' - General William Sherman, 1879
-
Iraqi possession of WMD's (various nerve gases, sarin anthrax etc) was well documented by the UN inspectors before they were kicked out of the country. Saddam did everything in his power to delay and deny the inspectors the chance to destroy those stock piles - then kicked the inspectors out of the country. Do you beleive that after he kicked them out he went about destroying those stockpiles anyway? Is it not possible that they just haven't found them yet? Or that they were smuggled to Syria? The best question I have seen regarding this is that both Saddam and the WMDs were known to exist before the war. Neither has been seen since. Those opposing the war now say that the WMDs never existed. By that logic it also make sense that Saddam never existed?? Dave Huff Igor would you give me a hand with the bags? Certainly - you take the blonde and I'll take the one in the turban!
Dave Huff wrote: Iraqi possession of WMD's (various nerve gases, sarin anthrax etc) was well documented by the UN inspectors before they were kicked out of the country. I think they documented that materials were unaccounted for rather than that Iraq definitely had them. Dave Huff wrote: Is it not possible that they just haven't found them yet? Or that they were smuggled to Syria? It is possible that they were smuggled to Syria --- in which case the risk of their use by terrorists has increased since the materials are now harder to trace and hence can be given to terrorists with less risk of US reprisal. But I doubt it. If Iraq had a significant WMD program, then a lot of people would have known about it. Anyone with information on it has a huge incentive to come forward to the US authorities. The US is so desperate to find WMD, that an informant could name their own price. The fact that no-one has apparently come forward with solid information suggests to me that Iraq did not have WMD at the time of the invasion. Dave Huff wrote: The best question I have seen regarding this is that both Saddam and the WMDs were known to exist before the war. Neither has been seen since. Those opposing the war now say that the WMDs never existed. By that logic it also make sense that Saddam never existed?? No, it doesn't. The US had a list of wanted people, represented in its pack of cards. It has found a lot of them, though not all. If it had found a lot of WMD, though not all, we wouldn't be having this discussion. It has found none. John Carson
-
No but he did leave behind mass graves full of those who disagreed with him. WMD or not, Saddam needed to be removed from power. He was as they say, the bad guy. BBC news report[^] Michael 'War is at best barbarism...Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation. War is hell.' - General William Sherman, 1879
Michael P Butler wrote: No but he did leave behind mass graves full of those who disagreed with him. WMD or not, Saddam needed to be removed from power. He was as they say, the bad guy. i know that and i never supported that bum (saddam), and he had to be removed. i was commenting on Dave's logic about WMD...
-
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: I agree with Mike on to many think getting the oil is over stated. The Oil is actually a two sided arguement to me. Conventional Oil reserves are far more limited than we like to believe. However there will still be a lot of fossil fuels around after the normal shale oil is used up. Sticky stuff like tar sands will be extractable in the future, however they will be a lot more expensive to obtain. Iraq represents a lot of easy to get oil. IMHO This oil is more important for long term US economic security then the oil industry getting rich etc. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: We get a lot more from South America. This is currently very true, internal politics in Venuzalea have been shown to effect the US economy sharply in the last year. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: In the US's effort to be above the rest I feel our Intel has tried to be clean (and most are not.) My guess is thats true. I'm actually kinda upset that no real WMDs have been found as I supported Bush believing he must find them to justify his actions. I bet he believed that as well, and was expecting to come out of this smelling a lot better. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: That has lead to your scenario being very believable since our own assets were not as entrenched as they should have been. Yeah, the "assets" on the ground would have been payed informants rather than US operatives. Putting operatives into the Middle East or even Asia appears to be a contiuing problem for the CIA, as they just don't blend in easy. Regardz Colin J Davies
*** WARNING *
This could be addictive
**The minion's version of "Catch :bob: "It's a real shame that people as stupid as you can work out how to use a computer. said by Christian Graus in the Soapbox
Colin Davies wrote: IMHO This oil is more important for long term US economic security then the oil industry getting rich etc. Yes any non-renewable source does have it's influence. As for just energy we do have options. Do you know that most of the entire state of Illinois has a 6 to 12 foot layer of coal under it. You strip mine the entire state if worst came to worst. Colin Davies wrote: Putting operatives into the Middle East or even Asia appears to be a continuing problem for the CIA, as they just don't blend in easy. Well, that is changing. My support for the war was the reaction of the Iraqi (and Bosnian) refugees we have in my neighborhood. They were all for it and praise Bush as a hero. But that is back to for the good of the Iraqi people, different thread. "For as long as I can remember, I have had memories. Colin Mochrie."
-
No but he did leave behind mass graves full of those who disagreed with him. WMD or not, Saddam needed to be removed from power. He was as they say, the bad guy. BBC news report[^] Michael 'War is at best barbarism...Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation. War is hell.' - General William Sherman, 1879
Sadly there are mass graves all around the World. Human Rughts are violated wildly, and not in Iraq only. Just in today news, have a look: Congo: Over 500 badly mutilated bodies have been found in a number of mass graves in recent weeks following heavy fighting between the rival Lendu and Hema groups in the Ituri region" Myanmar: the country's intelligence chief and third-ranked leader Gen. Khin Nyunt lashed out at "internal destructive elements" - a reference to Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy. He said they were undermining Myanmar's peace and stability. Zimbabwe: "A doctor who belongs to an underground network that treats activists who are assaulted - many doctors have been threatened for this work - said he had treated more than 60 victims of political violence last week. Over half were women, and most were beaten by soldiers at night." I would love that human rights enforcements were a justification for military interventions, everywhere. But it can't be used to justify just one
Show me a hero, and I'll show you a bum - Greg "Pappy" Boyington
-
Just came across this in the WaPo by Robert Kagan regarding "The absurdity of these accusations is mind-boggling..." Dave Huff Igor would you give me a hand with the bags? Certainly - you take the blonde and I'll take the one in the turban!
Thanks for the link. My opinion. If the above link is justification for the war then the war is justified if they find anything or not. If it is not justification then will my leadership please provide that justification. Even if it is not given to the public and bipartisan congressional team (with some French and German delegates sworn to secrecy) could review the justification and then report that the info was known. If that is not possible then this line should not have been used as justification. There was plenty of other reasons. "For as long as I can remember, I have had memories. Colin Mochrie."
-
Sadly there are mass graves all around the World. Human Rughts are violated wildly, and not in Iraq only. Just in today news, have a look: Congo: Over 500 badly mutilated bodies have been found in a number of mass graves in recent weeks following heavy fighting between the rival Lendu and Hema groups in the Ituri region" Myanmar: the country's intelligence chief and third-ranked leader Gen. Khin Nyunt lashed out at "internal destructive elements" - a reference to Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy. He said they were undermining Myanmar's peace and stability. Zimbabwe: "A doctor who belongs to an underground network that treats activists who are assaulted - many doctors have been threatened for this work - said he had treated more than 60 victims of political violence last week. Over half were women, and most were beaten by soldiers at night." I would love that human rights enforcements were a justification for military interventions, everywhere. But it can't be used to justify just one
Show me a hero, and I'll show you a bum - Greg "Pappy" Boyington
KaЯl wrote: I would love that human rights enforcements were a justification for military interventions, everywhere. But it can't be used to justify just one Agreed. It is to late to say this was the primary justification for Iraq, even if I personally feel it was the primary justification. Now for the future. Should we (US + UN) (or France) start with one as the primary justification and see what happens? "For as long as I can remember, I have had memories. Colin Mochrie."
-
Ok this is my belief. Originally I believed that the US would go into Iraq and find the WMDs in a few days, but this hasn't happened. So whats gone wrong ? 1. Since Gulf War number one the US has worked hard and spent a fortune into getting Intel into the Mid East. So how could they be so wrong ? 2. The US Presidency behaved in a manner as if they were 100% sure that Iraq had WMDs. If they believed there was a chance there was no WMDs to be found, they most certainly had no back up plan. So why did they have such strong belief? IMHO: The Intel operations for the last few years have been defrauded. The Mid East sources soon discovered that by giving the CIA etc information about Chemical and Biological facilities that the CIA went into a frenzy. So they began feeding/selling more information. To satisfy the demand for the information they began elaborately fabricating the information. Of course the CIA would try to check the information, but the Inteligence sources who did the checking would soon discover that the CIA was more interested in proof collaborating the information rather than disproving it. Thus more corruption occured, and fabrication of evidence. This would have caused the CIA to believe that Saddam etc could turn the world into a total biological wasteland. The CIA obviously believed this and passed these falacious beliefs onto the presidency. The Presidency saw the joint opportunity to rid the world of the Iraq WMDs and gain acces to the massive Oil resources as too much of an opportunity to pass up. - Now if you consider my opinion on this crap, please think for a moment at some of the ridiculous things that happened in the espionage world during the Cold War. Many spys were uncovered that were purely fiction writers as well. - Regardz Colin J Davies
*** WARNING *
This could be addictive
**The minion's version of "Catch :bob: "It's a real shame that people as stupid as you can work out how to use a computer. said by Christian Graus in the Soapbox
Interesting analisys. However, it seems that all intelligence agencies weren't convinced of an immediate iraqi threat, according to a DIA report from September 02. We can then consider the possibility the US administration was selective in its information sources as high. Why? IMHO, because the process was inverted: The US administration wasn't warned by informations then decided to go to war, but decided to go to war then searched for the informations it needed to justify it. Your analysis also supposes the US administration was honest on its belief in a WMD threat. I'm affraid it's just an hypothesis. IMHO WMD were just a mediatic coup to put the opinions on the side of the neo-cons, but the real motivations were elsewhere. Oil is probably one. Not only the iraqi ressources for themselves, but also the oil terminals, the place where the tankers take their load. These are strategic places, so justify an occupation. Occupy Iraq also enables to put a bigger pressure on Iran, now bordered by two US occupied countries. Having a favorable/submitted iraqi government in a part of the World where love of the USS is not really high is also interesting. It could also be a way to restore the US economy, first by increasing the military expenses and put money in the system, then by giving contracts to US firms to rebuild Iraq and pay them with the benefits from the iraqi oil.
Shake, Courage. Shake.
-
Colin Davies wrote: IMHO This oil is more important for long term US economic security then the oil industry getting rich etc. Yes any non-renewable source does have it's influence. As for just energy we do have options. Do you know that most of the entire state of Illinois has a 6 to 12 foot layer of coal under it. You strip mine the entire state if worst came to worst. Colin Davies wrote: Putting operatives into the Middle East or even Asia appears to be a continuing problem for the CIA, as they just don't blend in easy. Well, that is changing. My support for the war was the reaction of the Iraqi (and Bosnian) refugees we have in my neighborhood. They were all for it and praise Bush as a hero. But that is back to for the good of the Iraqi people, different thread. "For as long as I can remember, I have had memories. Colin Mochrie."
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Do you know that most of the entire state of Illinois has a 6 to 12 foot layer of coal under it. WOW that is a lot of coal !! Personally I think that we should be able to grow energy via "BIOMASS" type projects, and this would become competitive with the idea of strip mining Illiois. And at some stage though extracting fossil fuels will not give a decent return on investment. But the statistics on what oil reserves the world has are highly blurred, for a number of reasons. For example NZ is rumoured to have some decent oil pockets in the ocean, however due to national security the information from drilling results cannot be published. {I guess they think we will be invaded if it becomes known we have oil} or maybe its all BS. Then other countries might not it to become known that their oil reservs are running low, so as to not run the risk of losing International investment. Plus public and private companies also keep this information secretive. To top it off, many geologists etc clearly admit that there science is far from exact. Regardz Colin J Davies
*** WARNING *
This could be addictive
**The minion's version of "Catch :bob: "It's a real shame that people as stupid as you can work out how to use a computer. said by Christian Graus in the Soapbox
-
KaЯl wrote: I would love that human rights enforcements were a justification for military interventions, everywhere. But it can't be used to justify just one Agreed. It is to late to say this was the primary justification for Iraq, even if I personally feel it was the primary justification. Now for the future. Should we (US + UN) (or France) start with one as the primary justification and see what happens? "For as long as I can remember, I have had memories. Colin Mochrie."
-
KaЯl wrote: I would love that human rights enforcements were a justification for military interventions, everywhere. But it can't be used to justify just one Agreed. It is to late to say this was the primary justification for Iraq, even if I personally feel it was the primary justification. Now for the future. Should we (US + UN) (or France) start with one as the primary justification and see what happens? "For as long as I can remember, I have had memories. Colin Mochrie."
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Now for the future. Should we (US + UN) (or France) start with one as the primary justification and see what happens? A consistent policy of promoting democracy and human rights, backed by force where necessary, is certainly one that I would support. But I can't see it happening in my lifetime. John Carson
-
Just came across this in the WaPo by Robert Kagan regarding "The absurdity of these accusations is mind-boggling..." Dave Huff Igor would you give me a hand with the bags? Certainly - you take the blonde and I'll take the one in the turban!
R. Kagan: "The absurdity of this charge is mind-boggling. Yes, neither the CIA nor the U.N. inspectors have ever known exactly how many weapons Hussein had or how many he was building" Hum...some apparently knew more: GW Bush: "Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."
Shake, Courage. Shake.
-
Iraqi possession of WMD's (various nerve gases, sarin anthrax etc) was well documented by the UN inspectors before they were kicked out of the country. Saddam did everything in his power to delay and deny the inspectors the chance to destroy those stock piles - then kicked the inspectors out of the country. Do you beleive that after he kicked them out he went about destroying those stockpiles anyway? Is it not possible that they just haven't found them yet? Or that they were smuggled to Syria? The best question I have seen regarding this is that both Saddam and the WMDs were known to exist before the war. Neither has been seen since. Those opposing the war now say that the WMDs never existed. By that logic it also make sense that Saddam never existed?? Dave Huff Igor would you give me a hand with the bags? Certainly - you take the blonde and I'll take the one in the turban!
Dave Huff wrote: Is it not possible that they just haven't found them yet? of course Dave Huff wrote: Or that they were smuggled to Syria? if tens of thousands of liters of Bio/Chem weapons have been smuggled to Syria, then the world is now a more dangerous place than it has ever been. Bush will therefore have accomplished exactly what he set out to prevent. Dave Huff wrote: Those opposing the war now say that the WMDs never existed. By that logic it also make sense that Saddam never existed?? no it doesn't. it might make sense by that logic that Saddam has ceased to exist, but we all know he existed at one time. few people are saying they "never" existed. what people are saying is that he might have actually destroyed them sometime betweeen '91 and today. -c To vote with no response is to follow the way of the coward.
-
Thanks Good link :-) JoeSox wrote: we might have blown everything up, so there is nothing left to find? True but the US didn't have to blow everything up, as Iraq capitulated too fast for that to happen. :-) JoeSox wrote: Saddam is partially funded by the CIA and the Bush's use him as a patsy. From the early days of the Baath party maybe the CIA infiltrated and paid a few people off. But being a dictator in a place like Iraq is the next best thing to being the owner of the country. Any CIA money would have been peanuts for him in the last 25 yrs. "Please prove me wrong" Regardz Colin J Davies
*** WARNING *
This could be addictive
**The minion's version of "Catch :bob: "It's a real shame that people as stupid as you can work out how to use a computer. said by Christian Graus in the Soapbox
Colin Davies wrote: Any CIA money would have been peanuts for him in the last 25 yrs. "Please prove me wrong" true, it is his safety that is important too him. the CIA probably assured that they would not kill him, and threw some money at him too. Gee we still don't know if he is dead or alive huh, gee imagine that:| Later,
JoeSox
www.humanaiproject.org "Dream as if you'll live forever; live as if you'll die tomorrow." - James Dean(ISTP) -
R. Kagan: "The absurdity of this charge is mind-boggling. Yes, neither the CIA nor the U.N. inspectors have ever known exactly how many weapons Hussein had or how many he was building" Hum...some apparently knew more: GW Bush: "Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."
Shake, Courage. Shake.
Here's an 8-page list of WMD quotes from GWB and his people: http://www.lunaville.com/WMD/billmon.aspx[^] I'll quote some here: Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. Dick Cheney, Vice President Speech to VFW National Convention 8/26/2002 If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world. Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary Press Briefing 12/2/2002 Iraq could decide on any given day to provide biological or chemical weapons to a terrorist group or to individual terrorists,...The war on terror will not be won until Iraq is completely and verifiably deprived of weapons of mass destruction. Dick Cheney, Vice President Denver, Address To Air National Guard 12/1/2002 [ apparently, the War On Terror could be over very soon!!! ] We know for a fact that there are weapons there. Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary Press Briefing 1/9/2003 Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes. Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary Press Briefing 3/21/2003 We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat. Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense ABC Interview 3/30/2003 I think you have always heard, and you continue to hear from officials, a measure of high confidence that, indeed, the weapons of mass destruction will be found. Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary Press Briefing 4/10/2003 We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so. George W. Bush, President Remarks to Reporters 5/3/2003 I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now. Colin Powell, Secretary of State Remarks to Reporters 5/4/2003 We never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country. Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense Fox News Interview 5/4/2003 U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and find" weapons of mass destruction. Condoleeza Rice, US National Security Advisor Reuters Interview 5/12/2003
-
Just came across this in the WaPo by Robert Kagan regarding "The absurdity of these accusations is mind-boggling..." Dave Huff Igor would you give me a hand with the bags? Certainly - you take the blonde and I'll take the one in the turban!
Dave Huff wrote: Just came across this in the WaPo by Robert Kagan regarding "The absurdity of these accusations is mind-boggling..." I think that there is an important distinction here. Think of a police investigation. The police always throw around accusations. "We know you are guilty. Confess and make things easy on yourself." As the legal processes proceed, however, things get more cautious. A prosecuting attorney is more circumspect (and may decide not to proceed with charges) and a judge and jury are more circumspect still. The Bush administration was in the position of judge and jury and hence should have been more circumspect than those merely making accusations. It went ahead with the war when others were cautioning against it and arguing that weapons inpectors needed to be given more time to establish the facts. The Bush administration said it was a waste of time. It already knew that Iraq had WMD. That is a crucial difference. Bush took action rather than wait for more information because he claimed he already knew. The article you refer to says: Maybe French President Jacques Chirac was lying when he declared in February that there were probably weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that "we have to find and destroy them." This statement notwithstanding, the important point is that Chirac wanted the inspections to continue. Why? Because he wasn't sure what, if any, WMD Iraq had. Similarly the article quotes Blix expressing various doubts and suspicions. But Blix likewise wanted the inspections to continue. Why? Because he wasn't sure what, if any, WMD Iraq had. To liken his position to that of the Bush administration is just absurd. John Carson
-
Iraqi possession of WMD's (various nerve gases, sarin anthrax etc) was well documented by the UN inspectors before they were kicked out of the country. Saddam did everything in his power to delay and deny the inspectors the chance to destroy those stock piles - then kicked the inspectors out of the country. Do you beleive that after he kicked them out he went about destroying those stockpiles anyway? Is it not possible that they just haven't found them yet? Or that they were smuggled to Syria? The best question I have seen regarding this is that both Saddam and the WMDs were known to exist before the war. Neither has been seen since. Those opposing the war now say that the WMDs never existed. By that logic it also make sense that Saddam never existed?? Dave Huff Igor would you give me a hand with the bags? Certainly - you take the blonde and I'll take the one in the turban!
Dave Huff wrote: The best question I have seen regarding this is that both Saddam and the WMDs were known to exist before the war. Neither has been seen since. Those opposing the war now say that the WMDs never existed. By that logic it also make sense that Saddam never existed?? No. WMD's didn't give a 1 hour interview with Dan Rather on CBS, for instance.. --------------------------------------------------
-
Ok this is my belief. Originally I believed that the US would go into Iraq and find the WMDs in a few days, but this hasn't happened. So whats gone wrong ? 1. Since Gulf War number one the US has worked hard and spent a fortune into getting Intel into the Mid East. So how could they be so wrong ? 2. The US Presidency behaved in a manner as if they were 100% sure that Iraq had WMDs. If they believed there was a chance there was no WMDs to be found, they most certainly had no back up plan. So why did they have such strong belief? IMHO: The Intel operations for the last few years have been defrauded. The Mid East sources soon discovered that by giving the CIA etc information about Chemical and Biological facilities that the CIA went into a frenzy. So they began feeding/selling more information. To satisfy the demand for the information they began elaborately fabricating the information. Of course the CIA would try to check the information, but the Inteligence sources who did the checking would soon discover that the CIA was more interested in proof collaborating the information rather than disproving it. Thus more corruption occured, and fabrication of evidence. This would have caused the CIA to believe that Saddam etc could turn the world into a total biological wasteland. The CIA obviously believed this and passed these falacious beliefs onto the presidency. The Presidency saw the joint opportunity to rid the world of the Iraq WMDs and gain acces to the massive Oil resources as too much of an opportunity to pass up. - Now if you consider my opinion on this crap, please think for a moment at some of the ridiculous things that happened in the espionage world during the Cold War. Many spys were uncovered that were purely fiction writers as well. - Regardz Colin J Davies
*** WARNING *
This could be addictive
**The minion's version of "Catch :bob: "It's a real shame that people as stupid as you can work out how to use a computer. said by Christian Graus in the Soapbox
Possible. However its not just a question of the CIA or Bush. The British secret service aren't exactly amatuers and they had much the same info. Clinton's administration beleived it, our congress, both Democrats and Republicans, believed it. Saddam's behavior itself suggested he had them. There must have been some such weapons because he had certainly used them in the past. Whatever happened to them, I think they should have left a few laying around. The fact that we have found none at all convinces me that they certainly had a plan in place to do something with whatever they had.
-
Ok this is my belief. Originally I believed that the US would go into Iraq and find the WMDs in a few days, but this hasn't happened. So whats gone wrong ? 1. Since Gulf War number one the US has worked hard and spent a fortune into getting Intel into the Mid East. So how could they be so wrong ? 2. The US Presidency behaved in a manner as if they were 100% sure that Iraq had WMDs. If they believed there was a chance there was no WMDs to be found, they most certainly had no back up plan. So why did they have such strong belief? IMHO: The Intel operations for the last few years have been defrauded. The Mid East sources soon discovered that by giving the CIA etc information about Chemical and Biological facilities that the CIA went into a frenzy. So they began feeding/selling more information. To satisfy the demand for the information they began elaborately fabricating the information. Of course the CIA would try to check the information, but the Inteligence sources who did the checking would soon discover that the CIA was more interested in proof collaborating the information rather than disproving it. Thus more corruption occured, and fabrication of evidence. This would have caused the CIA to believe that Saddam etc could turn the world into a total biological wasteland. The CIA obviously believed this and passed these falacious beliefs onto the presidency. The Presidency saw the joint opportunity to rid the world of the Iraq WMDs and gain acces to the massive Oil resources as too much of an opportunity to pass up. - Now if you consider my opinion on this crap, please think for a moment at some of the ridiculous things that happened in the espionage world during the Cold War. Many spys were uncovered that were purely fiction writers as well. - Regardz Colin J Davies
*** WARNING *
This could be addictive
**The minion's version of "Catch :bob: "It's a real shame that people as stupid as you can work out how to use a computer. said by Christian Graus in the Soapbox
The way Saddam played shifty also didn't help anything. I had said in the past, before the Gulf War 2, that I believed Saddam still had WMD (biological, chemical, but not nuclear). But, I also knew it was a subjective analysis, so I didn't come down too harshly on countries like France that seemed to want a little more hard evidence. My subjective analysis was based primarily on: (1) Saddam's efforts in the past to hide his weapons programs ( the incident in 1995 when a defector lead inspectors to find a farm full of nuclear research documents was an example of Saddam's apparent efforts to retain WMD knowledge ). There have been numerous other cases which occured years after 1991 when the inspectors would suddenly catch someone trying to sneak out of a facility with documents or prevent inspectors from entering facilities for several days. (2) The Iraqi regime's attempts to limit the extent of weapons inspectors searches. Whether it was the US demand that U2s be able to fly over the country or the ability of weapons inspectors to search "Presidential palaces" (which were sometimes very large complexes), Iraq was always trying negotiate limits to the weapons inspector's capabilities. I couldn't see any real reason behind a lot of these moves except that Iraq really wanted to keep its WMD programs. Based on Iraq's shifty behaviors, I think people could convince themselves that Iraq absolutely does have (or at least intends to reconstitute) a WMD program. I still think that, based on those behaviors, there was a good reason to suspect that was the case. But, shifty behaviors does not 100% mean illegal activities. In any case, I've felt that the US overstated its case when it tries to say, "The WMD are in this or that facility", but was actually operating on a more subjective level in regard to Iraq's suspicious behaviors. ------------------------------------------ "I had no interest in trying to actually drive [in Italy], that would have been suicide. It would have been comitting my body entirely to game with indistinct rules, playing with a nation of opponents who are professionals at the sport."