Iraqi WMD's non-existence still confounding some buggers! by chrisisall

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Hero

You still think there's WMD in Iraq ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 7, 2007 10:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Hero

You still think there's WMD in Iraq ?

Of course he does, Rue, it's in the secret base of Ernst Stavro Blofeld, who briefly aligned himself with Iraq, and who had planned to steal them from Saddam all along.

He (and they) are now in Iran.

Silly silly British Rue Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 7, 2007 10:53 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Oh dear, that was a silly question for me to ask, wasn't it ?

And yet, I'm still hoping for a reply.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 7, 2007 11:19 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I was thinking about this as I wrote it. How many WMDs are too many? How many tons of sarin gas do you need?

A lot.

Quote:
I think that the ability to produce it is bad and easily found, but a couple tons of it is really bad, yet easily hidden. Especially since I plan to cheat our little game and hide everything in Utah.

Because too bad for YOU that Sarin and liquid anthrax degrade quickly, especially in hot weather. You can't produce Sarin or liquid anthrax little by little and store it like in a piggy-bank. You see, this is where being a technical newbie puts you at a disadvantage. Your imagination is free to dream up all kinds of scenarios. But once you start grappling with the real details there are suddenly many stumbling blocks. And what about those rockets? What good does it so to have all those weapons if you can't "deliver" them? The facts are as the facts are.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 7, 2007 12:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
I was thinking about this as I wrote it. How many WMDs are too many? How many tons of sarin gas do you need?
A lot.
Quote:

For military use in an open battlefield that's probably true in a confined space like the NY subway.... not so much.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4365417.stm

That's the kicker of this whole thing. A pound of polonium has limited miliary use against forces with good ABC countermeasures. The same amount wrapped around a dirty bomb and exploded in Times Square? Different ball game.

So if the question is "can you hide enough to win a replay of the Iran-Iraq war or topple Saudi Arabia, the answer is probably no, if the question is can you hide enough to give NYC or LA a very bad day, that's very different.

You may not agree that WMD's were the real reason that the administration went to war but they certainly expected to find some when they got there. Declaring war on that basis, going in and finding nothing was the worse possible result for them because it very serverly damaged US creadibilty from that moment. Right now Washington could show a video of Iran's president Ahmadinejad, tapdancing around an A-Bomb, provide a hand writen note by him saying he'll drop it on Tel Aviv and a radar track of the plane in the air and the UN won't believe it. The US could have come up with any number of reasons to topple Sadam, they chose WMD because unlike Rue they were absolutely sure that when they got there they would find some.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 7, 2007 12:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Because too bad for YOU that Sarin and liquid anthrax degrade quickly, especially in hot weather. You can't produce Sarin or liquid anthrax little by little and store it like in a piggy-bank. You see, this is where being a technical newbie puts you at a disadvantage.

Isn't liquid Anthrax principly in that state to allow it to be weaponised? I believe as dry powdered spores (like the stuff mailed to congress) it would actually last a long time. The UK exploded an Anthrax bomb on a Scotish island during WW2 and it was still considered lethal in the 1980's (I know the weather is a lil different but I'm curious.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gruinard_Island

Also, isn't Sarin made from binary components? Wiki suggests the shelf life in Binary form could be several years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 7, 2007 12:53 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Saddam didn't have the technology to create sporulated anthrax. When Colin Powell showed that little vial of powder to the UN and said that Saddam had so many thousand liters, that was complete BS. Saddam had liquid anthrax in the 80's. What Saddam missed destroying had been "spoiled" for many years by that time.

AFA terrorist use of WMD... Saddam was a secular dictator. He was not confused by visions of matryrdom and paradise. At one time he was our bulwark against Iranian theocracy. His ambitions were purely regional. Bush had to work hard to paint Saddam as a "terrorist" (in the sense of attacking the USA) and a lot of Bush's arguments had a lot of "if" coming offa them. (Saddam MIGHT sell WMD to terrorists. Or they MIGHT steal them from him. Or they MIGHT be deployed and stolen later.) The data just wasn't behind it.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 7, 2007 1:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Saddam didn't have the technology to create sporulated anthrax. When Colin Powell showed that little vial of powder to the UN and said that Saddam had so many thousand liters, that was complete BS. Saddam had liquid anthrax in the 80's. What Saddam missed destroying had been "spoiled" for many years by that time.

AFA terrorist use of WMD... Saddam was a secular dictator. He was not (towards the end to his reign) particularly "connected", but he also wasn't confused by visions of matryrdom and paradise. At one time he was our bulwark against Iranian theocracy. He had no intention of bringing down the USA because his ambitions were purely regional. But that's why Bush had to work so hard to connect Saddam to 9-11: to paint him as a "terrorist".

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

Hummm ok, that's kind of opposite from the way I understood it. Anthrax creates spores naturally and you can dry them and make them into a powder. That was why the 1940's British bomb could be made so easily. However, powdered Anthrax is hard to handle and deploy and is risky to your own troops. Making it as a liquid makes it more potent and means you can use it in the same artillary shells you can use to fire chemical weapons. I thought liquifying it was what made it "weaponised" as opposed to the powdered form which is what is supplied to most labs?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 7, 2007 1:23 PM

CUNKNOWN

I can't believe there is still discussion on this.. even Bush and Cheney themselves have admitted there was a severe "intelligence failure." Very curious, especially considering that the CIA was trying constantly to tell Bush even before the war that Saddam had no WMD. Bush just didn't listen. Anyway, any reputable source you can find will say that there were no WMD in Iraq and that there was an "intelligence failure" which made us think there was WMD there before the invasion.

So, I don't get what this thread is about. Is this for real a discussion on whether Saddam had WMD? I don't know whether to laugh or cry guys.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 7, 2007 1:29 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

There are a few people here who still think Iraq had WMD (though I'm still waiting for an answer from one person).

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 7, 2007 1:57 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

No, weaponized anthrax is sporulated. It's relatvely easy to grow anthrax in a liquid medium. What's difficult is collecting and purifying the spore from the "goop" and milling the spores dwon to individual particles. Also, you need to apply an anti-static coating to the spores otherwise they clump together and settle out too quickly. At one time I knew the preferred particle size (it was in the micron range) but have since forgotten.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 7, 2007 2:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I did know there were no WMD and I posted that.

So, how did I and others know while you didn't ?

You didn’t know. You bet against your country and may have gotten lucky, and now you’re trying to pass that off as knowledge. At best you’re disingenuous.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 7, 2007 2:11 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
You didn’t know.

No Finn. I KNEW.

Quote:
You bet against your country and got lucky,

I wasn't betting against my country I was betting for it. Because I ALSO knew that getting into Iraq would be a lot easier than getting out. I'll try and find my earlier posts from this board. Not that its verifiable but I can post my letters to Dianne Feinstein too if you wish.

Quote:
and now you’re trying to pass that off as knowledge.

I have repeated more than once how I knew what I knew. If you would listen and take heed you might know too.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 7, 2007 2:33 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

So, to reiterate: Start out with the idea that very few politicans really worry about "the state of the nation", and follow that with the idea that no politican is going to tell you outright that s/he's about to fnck you over.

Once you've stopped thinking of a politician as a big daddy (or mommy) taking care of the country you'll start to see the truth about a lot of things.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 7, 2007 2:36 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Finn

Quote:
You didn’t know. You bet against your country and may have gotten lucky, and now you’re trying to pass that off as knowledge. At best you’re disingenuous.

Actually I DID know, and I also knew that Bush knew, and that he lied. And so did SignyM, Ghoulman, and a few others. No betting was involved.

Bush LIED about WMD
May 09, 2005
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=10019

9/11 Commission finds no Credible link between Al Qaeda and Saddam
June 16, 2004
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=5766

Don't get mad, it's for our troops
May 05, 2004
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=5066

Our President
April 24, 2004
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=4880

So, how did we know ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 7, 2007 3:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Finn
Quote:
You didn’t know. You bet against your country and may have gotten lucky, and now you’re trying to pass that off as knowledge. At best you’re disingenuous.
Actually I DID know, and I also knew that Bush knew, and that he lied. And so did SignyM, Ghoulman, and a few others. No betting was involved.

That you have nothing good to say about this administration only demonstrates how biased you are, not that you knew anything. How could you have known? Where you in charge of Saddam’s weapons’ programs? Are you magical? That’s it, isn’t it? What’s more likely, that you’re some sort of all-knowing and all-seeing magician or you just shot your mouth and by happenstance got it right?

I know which one I pick.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 7, 2007 3:22 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

So you have nothing to say about the topic.

I keep asking you to figure out HOW we knew because even back then there were very specific pieces of widely available information that gave it away.

But you refused to consider them, no matter how evident, because they didn't fit with what you wanted to believe.

Do you want me to pull out specific quotes ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 7, 2007 3:24 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
That you have nothing good to say about this administration only demonstrates how biased you are

IS there anything good to say? Let's see.. he tried to privatize Social Security, he gave a way a shitload of money to the pharmas thru Medicare by prohibiting the government from bargaining over the price, he and his administration fiddled while NOLA drowned, he declared himself free from needing warrants for telephone snooping- or habeus corpus for detention, he wrote more "signing statements" than all other Presidents combined, he created a larger deficit than all previous deficits, he tried to allow illegal immigrants permanent residence,... I dunno, what did he do right? If you can come up with something good I'd sure be interested to hear it.

Quote:
How could you have known? Where you in charge of Saddam’s weapons’ programs? Are you magical? That’s it, isn’t it? What’s more likely, that you’re some sort of all-knowing and all-seeing magician or you just shot your mouth and by happenstance got it right?

Did you read my posts? I thought I was very clear on how I knew what I did:

1) historical precedent
2) lack of trust in most politicians
3) reports from Blix
4) the timing and tone of Adminstration statements.

According to the old thread that Rue dug up, I've been pretty clear all along. Nothing magical about it- just realism.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 7, 2007 3:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
So you have nothing to say about the topic.

I keep asking you to figure out HOW we knew because even back then there were very specific pieces of widely available information that gave it away.

And I’ve already told you. You took a guess and it turned out to be right. For instance, you trusted the opinion of the Foreign Minister of Saddam’s Iraq. Why? Because there’s any reason to believe that he was being honest or even that he knew himself? No. Most of Saddam’s government, including many of his weapon’s experts, didn’t know. But somehow you did? Magic is the only way that could have happened.

You had a point of view based largely on cynicism, distrust and outright hatred of Bush administration, more than any kind of real knowledge, but as it turns out you were probably correct. However, as far as you knew or anyone else, it could have just as easily not been correct. Now you’re trying to attribute some kind of certain knowledge, but all you’re doing is undermining your own credibility.

No one knew.

Some people guessed right.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
According to the old thread that Rue dug up, I've been pretty clear all along. Nothing magical about it- just realism.

Historical precedent? At no time in history has a nation believed to have WMD turn out to have them? Lack of trust in most politicians – so what? Reports from Blix – Blix went before the UN and listed tons of biological and chemical weapons Saddam was believed to have. The timing and tone of the administration statements – again so what? What you did was make a guess, based largely on your political ideology more than any kind of real knowledge. Now if you want to admit that you made a guess, even an insightful guess, I can believe that and even tip my hat to your insight, but if you’re going to insist that you somehow knew what you couldn’t possibly have known, don’t bother, because I’m not that stupid.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 7, 2007 4:06 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

You know Finn- when I come across people who seem to know more than I do - who make better predictions - I go out of my way to learn from them. I suppose your defensiveness about your background and education won't let you do that.

If you have to tell yourself that people who were right when you were wrong are just mean-spirited lucky guessers, then go right ahead and do that if it makes you feel better.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 7, 2007 4:21 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I was certain. Could I go to Iraq and verify what I was sure about? Of course not. But did I have any doubt whatsoever? No.

Quote:
Historical precedent? At no time in history has a nation believed to have WMD turn out to have them?

You're looking at the wrong precedent, my friend. I can point out a number of times that leaders have gone to war... or taken military action... for reasons that they dare not say out loud. Remember the Tonkin Gulf? The Mayaguez? Grenada? The Falklands? Panama? In hindsight, the "reasons" why a military action was taken don't stand up to the scrutiny of history.

Quote:
Lack of trust in most politicians – so what?

Just assume that what you're told has little to do with the truth. Take a step back and try not to be so engaged in the moment- take a historical perspective.

Quote:
Reports from Blix – Blix went before the UN and listed tons of biological and chemical weapons Saddam was believed to have.

No: Believed to have had. Which everyone knew were no longer useful (except mustard gas) What they were doing - aside from looking for active WMD programs- was an accounting of the weapons that Saddam claimed to have destroyed but didn't document.

Quote:
The timing and tone of the administration statements – again so what?

Finn, politicians only tell you what they want you to hear when they want you to hear it. They seek to manipulate you to further their own agendas. Take a step back, put it in that context. Most politicians lie. And I don't mean about little stuff like whether they go to church, I mean about whether to go to war or bankrupt the country.

Quote:
What you did was make a guess, based largely on your political ideology more than any kind of real knowledge. Now if you want to admit that you made a guess, even an insightful guess, I can believe that and even tip my hat to your insight, but if you’re going to insist that you somehow knew what you couldn’t possibly have known, don’t bother, because I’m not that stupid.

No, it's not based on ideology. I'm not a Democrat, I didn't vote for Clinton (and I could give you a long list of things that he did that galled me, starting wtih NAFTA), I think Hillary is dangerous. But I know when I'm being manipulated. If you want to call that an insightful guess, that's fine with me. But it was a guess based on lots of experience and analysis.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 7, 2007 4:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
And the WMDs were only one issue in the multi-issue cause for war that the administration presented. If we had ten good reasons and 1 bad one, then the war is still good.

This is a key point of disagreement: the sole reason I did not scream loudly at the start of the war was -only- due to the threat that Sadam had WMD; nothing else justified the war, imho. Of course, the real question is what was there a significant portion of the US public who felt the same way; harder to say. But it seems to me that there were a goodly number of folks in that leaky boat.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 7, 2007 4:40 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Hero, from a LEGAL perspective there is only one reason to pre-emptively attack and that is when faced with imminent danger. And even that notion isn't fully supported. There was nothing imminent about Saddam.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 7, 2007 4:43 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

And that's why Bush had to call it a preventative war. Though there's no such definition in international law - a fact that was pointed out at the time.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 7, 2007 4:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
If you have to tell yourself that people who were right when you were wrong are just mean-spirited lucky guessers, then go right ahead if it makes you feel better.

Being mean-spirited has nothing to do with the WMD issue.

I happen to think that there is a lot to be said for insightful guesses, most of the opinions I’ve had that turned out to be right were more often than not guesses. But when someone tries to convince me that they knew all along something that they couldn’t possibly have known – that’s a red flag that this person is trying to inflate the reliability of their opinions.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 7, 2007 4:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
You didn’t know. You bet against your country and may have gotten lucky, and now you’re trying to pass that off as knowledge.

In Signy's case, it's called having specific scientific knowledge of certain realities.

When Bush wanted to go into Afghanistan, I didn't yell that we shouldn't, just 'cause it was Bush sayin' it. But when the frenzy to invade Iraq started, I smelled Horse poop all over it.

Like when 'scientific' reports showed how 'good' margerine was for you, I balked. It was another case of finding or creating the evidence to support the findings they wanted.

In my case, common sence sufficed (but not so common as it should be, clearly).

And most of us don't BET against our country, we just call foul when we see it. It's just too bad that recently it's been often.

Chrisisall, no believer in real-life Treknobabble

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 7, 2007 4:53 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
that they knew all along something that they couldn’t possibly have known

It prolly depends on what you mean by "know". Was I certain? Yes. Was Rue certain? Yes. Does that constitute "knowing"? Well, I've predicted this kind of stuff b4. I know how it works, I have confidence in my model based on past success. IMHO yes.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 7, 2007 4:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
And the WMDs were only one issue in the multi-issue cause for war that the administration presented. If we had ten good reasons and 1 bad one, then the war is still good.
This is a key point of disagreement: the sole reason I did not scream loudly at the start of the war was -only- due to the threat that Sadam had WMD; nothing else justified the war, imho. Of course, the real question is what was there a significant portion of the US public who felt the same way; harder to say. But it seems to me that there were a goodly number of folks in that leaky boat.

There were other things that justified the war in my mind and probably in the minds of many key policy makers in the administrations, but the WMD issue was seen as the strongest argument to make as the CB to the public. And this was Fletch2’s point, that the administration would never have focused on this issue if they didn’t believe it completely. That makes a lot of sense.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 7, 2007 4:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

I happen to think that there is a lot to be said for insightful guesses,

Absolutely technically speaking, I can see your point. No one could "KNOW".
But in that way, I can only guess that Mt. Everest exists; I've never actually seen it...and I can only guess that Earth has only one moon since I can't PROVE a second or third one doesn't exist.
I plead guilty to leaning according to a propondererance of evidence- not first-hand conclusive proof.

Not perfected yet Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 7, 2007 5:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
the administration would never have focused on this issue if they didn’t believe it completely. That makes a lot of sense.

No
IT
DOESN'T!

It makes sense that they used it as the public reasoning for the war, assuming things would go better than they have been, and could've made up other excuses that we'd all buy later, as a sucessful campaigne would have been widely accepted, no matter the nefarious reasons for it's beginning (or so they thought, IMO).

They are no Boyscouts; Boyscouts are always prepared. They weren't.

'Believed it completely', I'm dyin' heah Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 7, 2007 5:05 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
There were other things that justified the war in my mind and probably in the minds of many key policy makers in the administrations, but the WMD issue was seen as the strongest argument to make as the CB to the public. And this was Fletch2’s point, that the administration would never have focused on this issue if they didn’t believe it completely. That makes a lot of sense.

How about... they focused on the issue because it would scare the crap outta the public? Because they thought the war would be a success and everybody forgives a success? Wow. You still haven't figured it out.

You just can't face the emotional turmoil of realizing that you've been lied to by someone you've been taught your whole life to respect. You have so much invested in what you think America is like that it's preventing you from seeing the truth. And if you saw the truth, you'd feel like a displaced person; the feeling of "home" would be gone. :sad face:
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 7, 2007 5:10 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"You had a point of view based largely on cynicism, distrust and outright hatred of Bush administration, more than any kind of real knowledge ..."

You couldn't be more wrong. There were many contrary facts that were in the news. It wasn't about guessing, or hatred, or trusting anyone in Hussein's government.

It started with the hasty exit from Afghanistan, with bin Laden still on the loose and Bush not thinking about him much, anymore. (And bin Laden says hi, just to remind us that he's still there. :waves hand:)

The 'yellowcake' SOTU, Powell's flimsy UN presentation, the aluminum tube fiasco the US DOE said could never used for centrifuges, Bush's continued escalation of demands on Hussein as he (Hussein) kept meeting UN requirements - and as the window for a good-weather war closed, the UN inspections finding nothing, and Bush arbitrarily creating a new timetable, Bush's own description of it as a 'preventative' war - these are only a few. The final nail was the sheer fact that the US military was NOT prepared for chemical or biological weapons and that, in the Bush scenario, he was prepared to send them into harm's way and take thousands of casualties from those 'massive stockpiles' of WMD just waiting to go.

Think about it. Does that make military or political sense to you ?

I was not in doubt that the US was being carefully groomed to turn and aim at Iraq for reasons divorced from 9/11, GWOT or WMD.

----------------------

And now, I have to get on with my (already full) weekend.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 7, 2007 5:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
I plead guilty to leaning according to a propondererance of evidence- not first-hand conclusive proof.

Except that the evidence that existed wasn’t even nearly as strong as you suggest. Most of Rue’s and Signym argument is based on cynicism and mistrust. That’s not evidence at all. There wasn’t any strong evidence one way or another. A good part of what’s generally given as evidence against WMDs in Iraq doesn’t really even qualify as evidence.

And yes, I think the administration was sure that they would find WMD’s in Iraq. Much like Rue and Signym, they were certain of what they couldn’t possibly have known. But the likely existence of WMDs in Saddam’s Iraq was the consensus, not only among those who were in favor of the war, but among those who were against it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 7, 2007 5:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
And the WMDs were only one issue in the multi-issue cause for war that the administration presented. If we had ten good reasons and 1 bad one, then the war is still good.
This is a key point of disagreement: the sole reason I did not scream loudly at the start of the war was -only- due to the threat that Sadam had WMD; nothing else justified the war, imho. Of course, the real question is what was there a significant portion of the US public who felt the same way; harder to say. But it seems to me that there were a goodly number of folks in that leaky boat.
There were other things that justified the war in my mind and probably in the minds of many key policy makers in the administrations, but the WMD issue was seen as the strongest argument to make as the CB to the public. And this was Fletch2’s point, that the administration would never have focused on this issue if they didn’t believe it completely. That makes a lot of sense.

Another key point of disagreement; I believe that Bush wanted the war, and one of two things happened,
1) he deliberately suppressed information which did not support going to war.
2) he made it clear that what he wanted was information to support going to war, and this failure in leadership led to him being presented biased information.

Neither 'looks good' for Bush, and the former borders on the illegal. The latter might support him 'believing it completely'; however, then he failed to learn the lesson of the need to get all perspectives appropriately represented to achieve the best solution. I personally do not think he 'believed it completely'; I believe he simply recognized it as the best way to ram through the initiation of the war.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 7, 2007 6:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Another key point of disagreement; I believe that Bush wanted the war, and one of two things happened.

I don’t disagree with that. But the mistake I think you’re making is in assuming that this necessarily means he had malicious motivations. I don’t think so at all. I think he believed, as did many in his administration, that Iraq had WMDs and was a potential threat, which in the years preceding 9/ll was not considered tolerable given US/Iraq relations. And in the absence of certainty, he felt an obligation to his office and his country. I can respect opinions that disagree with the war or with the reasons for going to war, but this desire to portray Bush as some sort of evil villain that was desperate for war is just far too sophomoric.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 7, 2007 6:42 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Most of Rue’s and Signym argument is based on cynicism and mistrust.

Not all all. I had to ask myself- and you should too- why, with Blix so near the finish line and no evidence whatsoever that Saddam had missiles that could reach us... what was so terribly urgent that invasion couldn't wait for another three months?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 7, 2007 7:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Most of Rue’s and Signym argument is based on cynicism and mistrust.
Not all all. I had to ask myself- and you should too- why, with Blix so near the finish line and no evidence whatsoever that Saddam had missiles that could reach us... what was so terribly urgent that invasion couldn't wait for another three months?

Wait for what? Iraq had the UNSC in its pocket. It led weapons’ inspectors around by their ears for a decade. The truth is that weapons inspectors in Iraq never had any credibility in the eyes of the administration. But that’s not evidence that there were no WMDs in Iraq – it’s just evidence that the administration didn’t trust the UN to find them, which quick frankly, I can’t blame them, given the UN's track record in Iraq.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 7, 2007 8:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
No, weaponized anthrax is sporulated. It's relatvely easy to grow anthrax in a liquid medium. What's difficult is collecting and purifying the spore from the "goop" and milling the spores dwon to individual particles. Also, you need to apply an anti-static coating to the spores otherwise they clump together and settle out too quickly. At one time I knew the preferred particle size (it was in the micron range) but have since forgotten.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

Well we built a bomb with 1940's technology while under strategic bombing and the main reason it wasn't used was out of fear that it could be too effective. It seems hard to imagine that Saddam couldn't do the same 50 years later.

Weaponising something to the level of a battlefield weapon is far far more complex than making a crude device. Things like antistatic coatings improve the effectiveness of the device but they are not essential.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 7, 2007 10:26 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Finn

Your arguments make little sense before the attack, and none at all to explain US action after. If the administration was SO sure there were WMDs that constituted such a DIRE threat - why didn't they secure the sites where they 'knew' the weapons were ? Why didn't they start looking for weapons until months later, and then only under pressure ? Why didn't they invite the UN in to help find the weapons after the war ?

Nope, your arguments don't make sense at all, Finn.

And you have yet to explain mine away. You just keep mis-characterizing them as conjecture, as if that was an actual argument. That the aluminum tubes couldn't be used in centrifuges was technical fact. That the 'yellowcake' claim was an outright lie was a fact, as outlined at great length in the Senate Report. The same is true for the supposed connection between Hussein and al Qaeda. That the military wasn't equipped for a CBW war was reported by the GAO. That Bush kept shifting the goal-lines for Iraq to avoid war was reported on the WH website.

I invite you to substantively discuss these facts. But if all you do is more handwaving, then I see no point in further discussion.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 8, 2007 1:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Most of Rue’s and Signym argument is based on cynicism and mistrust.
Not all all. I had to ask myself- and you should too- why, with Blix so near the finish line and no evidence whatsoever that Saddam had missiles that could reach us... what was so terribly urgent that invasion couldn't wait for another three months?
Wait for what? Iraq had the UNSC in its pocket. It led weapons’ inspectors around by their ears for a decade. The truth is that weapons inspectors in Iraq never had any credibility in the eyes of the administration. But that’s not evidence that there were no WMDs in Iraq – it’s just evidence that the administration didn’t trust the UN to find them, which quick frankly, I can’t blame them, given the UN's track record in Iraq.

one important detail... turns out the UN / embargo was effective after all; Iraq in fact had destroyed the bulk of their weapons. You now speak of 'trust',etc. Keeping in mind that Iraq had a very hostile neighbor, Sadam played his hand to keep Iraq worried enough to not invade them; this isn't exactly an irrational possition given I doubht much of anyone in the world would come to Iraq's aid in such an event. Sadam underestimated one of two things:
1) US's ability to conduct effective intelligence.
2) Bush's determination to invade regardless.
I personally believe it was #2 that was his undoing more so than 1.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 8, 2007 3:03 AM

I've been pondering this a bit; and have decided I'm personally at my 'sum up' point for where this discussion has been going.

Consider this analogy: Person A, B and C. A lives across the street from B & C. A sees B fiddling around with something that looks like a grenade launcher vaguely aimed at C's place. There's a long history of trouble and threats amongst the three; and C is suspected of occasionally stealing B's stuff, and they are 'fighting' over where a property line should be drawn. B & C have each eternally sworn to see the other sent to hell first. Person A, knowing that grenade launcher could hit his house, shoots and kills person B. Many of the neighbors are variously pleased or not over the passing of B, and many think the action justified. It turns out, when the cops show up, that the grenade launcher was really a pipe and drill bit; and the rest of the drilling rig is in the house ready to be setup. Now, had that -really- been a grenade launcher, A probably could have gotten off with a self-defense plea. But he was, however justifiably, wrong. In all likely hood, he's going to go away for man-slaughter or some reduced charge.

Much in the same way, the only fig leaf Bush had going into Iraq was the WMD. This is something he -had- to be right about. He was wrong; perhaps with good reason; but he was in fact wrong. This is a case where, all excuses aside, this leaves Bush liable, at least morally, possibly legally. I believe that the question is not was Bush in the wrong, but which crime is he guilty of: Knowing that the WMD but trying to leave himself plausible denial ability. Or just 'wrong', and being guilty of the 'manslaughter' equivalent. I believe he should be removed from office, and in any case once out of office, could be subjected to international judgment. Of course, I'm not going to hold my breath on this one... looks like Bush is going to get another free pass on his 'oops'.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 8, 2007 3:46 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Fletch2- the liquid anthrax that Saddam was a "bulk" form.

Quote:
Consequently, it was also never explained that Iraq had been "fundamentally disarmed" by UN inspectors, in the words of former UNSCOM inspector Scott Ritter, with "90-95% of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capability…verifiably eliminated". It was never revealed to the American public by the Bush administration that even had Iraq managed to maintain "stockpiles" of the anthrax it had produced, it had a shelf life which would have rendered it useless many years prior. Iraq, Ritter explained, produced only "liquid bulk anthrax", which "even under ideal storage conditions, germinates in three years, becoming useless."

Y'all should read this:
www.yirmeyahureview.com/articles/iraq_anthrax.htm

ALSO, FLECTH2-The wiki article that you link to is NOT REPEAT NOT liquid anthrax. They refer to anthrax spores which are a dry powder. When they refer to a "brown aerosol" they're referring to a POWDERED aerosol.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 8, 2007 3:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
one important detail... turns out the UN / embargo was effective after all; Iraq in fact had destroyed the bulk of their weapons.

Actually, I think it was more likely that the UN destroyed the bulk of Iraq’s WMDs, but this is irrelevant. The UN conducted weapons’ inspections so poorly and was so willing to appease Saddam instead of enforcing UN Chapter 7 Resolutions that they could not be trusted. The UN didn’t even trust themselves. The UN had no idea what WMDs Saddam had – they couldn’t verify it because weapons’ inspectors were so heavily chained by politics and the UNSC was so totally ineffective in dealing with Iraq. You can’t say that they UN was effective after all, when they were totally clueless about how effective they were. The US intelligence was bad and the UN had lost control of the political situation in Iraq – following 9/ll both the US and the UK found this to be understandably alarming.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 8, 2007 4:18 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Wait for what? Iraq had the UNSC in its pocket. It led weapons’ inspectors around by their ears for a decade. The truth is that weapons inspectors in Iraq never had any credibility in the eyes of the administration. But that’s not evidence that there were no WMDs in Iraq – it’s just evidence that the administration didn’t trust the UN to find them, which quick frankly, I can’t blame them, given the UN's track record in Iraq.

The you should have paid closer attention to THIS inspection team. Harassment from Saddam and tepid support from the UN did not prevent these guys from fulfilling their mission. Also under pressure from the USA and with the inducement of oil contracts Iraq was allowing access to every place that the inspectors chose to go, including Presidential Palaces.

Scott Ritter described what they would do:

They would communicate in the hotel room by writing.
THEY decided on the target
They would only pass around a WRITTEN target time and location on inspection AM, as they were standing by their vehicles.
They would split up into 4-5 groups, and drive randomly around, only converging on a target at the last moment
They would bust down the door
They assumed they had FIVE MINUTES to do an inspection until critical info was "sanitized"
When they burst in, their team consisted of computer experts, biologists, chemists, missile experts, security, and the like. They would split up and grab computers and documents and samples and anything else that could provide info, and take it with them for later examination

It was a very aggressive search, guided by past experience, satellite and reconnaissance photos, and CIA (and other intelligence agency) concerns. (Don't forget that some of the folks in the inspection teams were - in addition to their official duties and training- also CIA officers.) SO, for example, if photos showed a lot of trucks parked at a particular facility that might be dual-use, they would converge their. So this wasn't a hand-waving kind of inspection. but this kind of detail was not presented to Americans by mainstream media.

BTW- Rue and I both do inspections and audits. I'm asked frequently to review data and reports, and I also do internal audits and I'm pretty damn good at it. I think I have an appreciation for "might haves" and "maybes" because I encounter them rather frequently in my line of work, which is (at times) forensic auditing.

Sometimes you have to be quiet and just let the data speak to you without imposing your fears of hopes on it. I don't know how else to describe the concept. I watched the situation develop with Iraq and I let the data speak to me. And what it said was This is a setup

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 8, 2007 4:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
one important detail... turns out the UN / embargo was effective after all; Iraq in fact had destroyed the bulk of their weapons.
Actually, I think it was more likely that the UN destroyed the bulk of Iraq’s WMDs, but this is irrelevant. The UN conducted weapons’ inspections so poorly and was so willing to appease Saddam instead of enforcing UN Chapter 7 Resolutions that they could not be trusted. The UN didn’t even trust themselves. The UN had no idea what WMDs Saddam had – they couldn’t verify it because weapons’ inspectors were so heavily chained by politics and the UNSC was so totally ineffective in dealing with Iraq. You can’t say that they UN was effective after all, when they were totally clueless about how effective they were. The US intelligence was bad and the UN had lost control of the political situation in Iraq – following 9/ll both the US and the UK found this to be understandably alarming.

Alarming yes; sufficient justification for invasion, no; not without finding the weapons after the invasion.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 8, 2007 4:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The you should have paid closer attention to THIS inspection team. Harassment from Saddam and tepid support from the UN did not prevent these guys from fulfilling their mission. Also under pressure from the USA and with the inducement of oil contracts Iraq was allowing access to every place that the inspectors chose to go, including Presidential Palaces.

That may have been the case. But if it was the case, it was only so because the US and the UK had an invasion force at Iraq’s doorstep, not because the UN or Saddam had changed their colors. At that point, it was a little too late for Saddam to play nice or for the UN to act professionally. If the US and the UK had withdrawn their forces from Kuwait it would have been yet another political victory for Saddam and probably made this round of weapons’ inspectors even bigger fools then the last one. The US and the UK can’t keep their troops in Kuwait indefinitely, and there was no guarantee that weapons inspectors would be done any time soon. But neither the US nor the UK trusted the UN to deal with the situation anymore – and that trust had vanished long before Blix came on the scene. The truth is that neither the US nor the UK were going to happy with the UN handling this, and they insisted upon doing it the old fashion way with or without the UN. And while I might not like the idea of going to war with Iraq, I can’t sit here and tell you that I had any confidence in the UN’s ability to handle Iraq anymore either – so I can’t really say I had a better option.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 8, 2007 4:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Alarming yes; sufficient justification for invasion, no; not without finding the weapons after the invasion.

So it would have been sufficient justification if we had found WMD in Iraq? But since we had no way of knowing one way or another if there were WMDs in Iraq, your sufficient justification is based on a wholly unknowable quantity. If a cop shoots a person whom he reasonably thinks is wielding a gun and whom he has every reason to believe is an armed criminal threatening his person, which later turns out to be a kid with a toy, is the shooting sufficiently justified?

That’s not a good analogy though because Iraq was never a kid with a toy. A better analogy might be that the perpetrator later turns out to be a criminal with a knife.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 8, 2007 4:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Alarming yes; sufficient justification for invasion, no; not without finding the weapons after the invasion.
So it would have been sufficient justification if we had found WMD in Iraq? But since we had no way of knowing one way or another if there were WMDs in Iraq, your sufficient justification is based on a wholly unknowable quantity. If a cop shoots a person whom he reasonably thinks is wielding a gun and whom he has every reason to believe is an armed criminal threatening his person, which later turns out to be a kid with a toy, is the shooting sufficiently justified?

It would merit a full investigation; and the officer should either be charged with a crime or cleared of fault. Feel free to initiate the investigation against Bush at any time.

Edit: Key word "full". In the case of a police officer, he will typically be removed from 'street duty' until this is resolved; and IA has all of the 'power'. Bush has not cooperated with reviews to date, using executive powers to ensure key information is not revealed. Bush has had plenty of power during reviews to date and has prevented any sort of 'full' investigation.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 8, 2007 4:53 AM