So Where [U]ARE[/U] Those WMD's?

[elucidator]

So here we are, controlling almost all of Iraq worth knowing about. And we still haven't found anything. Seems like the Bushistas are emphasizing the "liberate Iraq" selling point. Fact is, can't think of having heard anything about those dreaded WMD's in days. Of course, no news is no news.

Now, to be clear: I always rather assumed he might very well have them. Also thought he very well may not, they aren't very useful weapons, make better bluffing. Never really thought it was worth going to war over, anyway.

But God forbid it should turn out that a vile pustule like Saddam was telling the truth. Please, Lord, anything but that. That would be the worst possible outcome for this war short of actually losing.

Would he store them all in Baghdad? In the center of his most important, most populated city? Seems unlikely.

As recent events have shown, intelligence (if that is the word) as regards Iraq has been......faulty. Fearless Misleader swears he knows that Saddam's got 'em, but can't seem to tell the inspectors where to look. How does someone know something exists, and not know where they are? I know the library exists, I can take you there. Know my butt exists, its in this chair. Is our fixation on WMD's based on the same level of quality intelligence as our certainty that Saddam bin Laden was making an A-Bomb?

Has anyone seen any credible intelligence? Or is this entire thing predicated on the fact that Saddam is an Evil Old Bugger?

And why hasn't this question been asked and answered?

[elucidator]

Oh. Can't use underline in thread title. I see.

This unworthy one humbly beseeches the esteemed Mod to fix?

[TVAA]

It would be far too inconvenient for such questions to arise now. In fact, someone who asked them would obviously be trying to undermine the morale of this great nation, reducing the fighting effectiveness of our brave soldiers and thus offering aid and comfort to the enemy, committing treason.

You're not treasonous, are you? [ominous]

I didn't think so.

[athelas]

Mmmm...As far as using them goes, the wind's blowing in their faces. WMD's would be much more effective in a city, anyway. Also, the gas masks/suits may indicate (though indicate only) that they have BCNs but the armed forces haven't found them yet.

[december]

Military intelligence: Iraq may be hiding weapons in Syria (http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=278925&contrassID=1&subContrassID=5&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y)Iraq may be using Syria to hide forbidden long-range surface-to-surface missiles and chemical and biological weapons, the head of the Military Intelligence research unit told the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee on Monday.

In December 2002, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said there was a possibility that Saddam Hussein had sent biological and chemical weapons to Syria, in an effort to hide them from United Nations weapons inspector

[xenophon41]

Or is this entire thing predicated on the fact that Saddam is an Evil Old Bugger?
Well, he's an Evil Old Bugger with a history of using chemical weapons against his enemies, and of accumulating chem and bio weapons as fast as he can get his evil old mitts on them. So I think his established propensity is as much a predication for the assumption as the observation that he's eeeeevil.

It's probably a safe presumption that he has stores of chemical weapons, and that he has at least a few means of delivering them. It's probably less sure that his biological weapons are in any effective form, but prudence would require that we assume he can deliver a few. And we can pretty much discount Iraqi nukes as extremely unlikely.

In another thread, you put forth the theory that Saddam's "waiting for summer", with the strategy that he can lob a few empty drums at US forces and have all of them sweltering for hours in full chemical gear. That seems a likely tactic to me, but I think we'd be extremely foolish if we disregarded the likelihood that he's going to throw some real chemical artillery or rockets at our forces at some point. All it would take is one time, and he could force the sweat suits on our troops for the rest of the war.

(BTW, you should email a mod if you want the thread title changed.)

[elucidator]

Doesn't even need that one time. He can bluff every time, and we'll still have to dive into those suits. Other points well taken, none the less.

[TVAA]

If Saddam is really thinking ahead (and I doubt he can manage it), he'd be destroying all of his WMD right about now.

He may hope to survive this war, but when things start getting really bad, it may occur to him that the best way to hurt the US is to not have biological and chemical weapons. It'd be a subtle vengeance, but effective.

[elucidator]

For that matter, he might have done it years ago, for the same reasons.

[TVAA]

Possible, but I think he'd prefer to keep some around for emergencies.

[London_Calling]

Fwiw, I never thought he had any viable WOMD and I still (just) supported the narrow goal of removing Saddo.

It was a pretext, I thought we (mostly) understood that. Otherwise the UN Inspectors wouldn’t have spent their time charging around finding nothing but would have, instead, headed for the honey pots.

But here’s the thing. Saddo might live another 20-30 years and history tells us;

a) He’s a raving nutter, and
b) He likes to acquire naughty toys.


Thus, my reasoning has been, that in this 20-30 year time period, the US is likely to be the only ‘body’ capable of removing him and this, right now, is also likely to be the only time in that 20-30 years when a US president has the balls / motivation / is stupid enough / whatever to go get the bad guy.

So there are no WOMD (IMHO) but, somewhere down the road, there might be and he might still be alive and he might be tempted to try, say, a little blackmail. Or worse, use ‘em – cos he does that, he doesn’t just acquire WOMD, he uses them as well. Or even give the technology to people who would use them ...


So, yeah, until proven otherwise, I think Ritter was right, yet, ultimately, it didn't matter ... Sorry my tree hugging friends ...

[The Calculus of Logic]

We haven't won the war yet. After the war is over and inspectors supposedly will have unrestricted access to scientists or inspection points then more concrete evidence may turn up. Right now the only evidence is circumstantial & the testimony of defectors. nothing concrete.

[flight]

I saw it in another thread liek this, but can't credit it as I don't remember who wrote it:

"If we don't find any WMDs, we damn well better lie."

The Arab world hates us now, if we don't find any it is going to be a shitstorm. Just from the point making us not look like crazed empirialists.

[Philster]

Didn't you know you could wave a magic wand and make mustard gas and other agents vanish?

You mean you can't make it vanish.....you have to put it somewhere like a bunker or buried in a vault?

Oh, well then why doesn't someone just point to a bunker where it's buried? That's the problem. When the Iraqis had the weapons, they never denied having them, and it was no big secret.

When they agreed to disarm, they also happened to kick out anyone who was there to document what they were doing with the stuff.

You can't just toss the stuff in the trash, or run it down a garbage disposal, so then they should be able to point to a series of bunker or something!

Just think fo the effort in burying nuclear waste, as an example. Now imagine if the USA agreed to get rid of all it's nuclear reactor waste, right now. Then, we toss out anyone supervising the disposal of the waste. Then, seven years later, the inspectors come back and say "Hey, where'd you put all the waste?" and we answer "We destroyed it".

Um....no. That doesn't cut it.

You don't get rid of an arsenal of chemical/bio weapons and just claim you don't have it.

[RTFirefly]

I'm expecting we'll turn up some chemical weapons, somewhere. How much or how little, who knows.

But London Calling, I find your notion that this is an acceptable pretext for taking out Saddam, simply because he might be a genuine danger sometime in the next 20-30 years, is genuinely scary. If that's reasonable, then we should really take out Russia right now, while they're flat on their back, rather than waiting around for them to have another crack at becoming a Great Power.

Heck, to imagine who might be a threat to us 30 years down the road, recall the world as it was 30 years ago, when oil was $2 a barrel, and the Arab nations were a negligible force in international politics.

[Mandelstam]

London: "But here?s the thing. Saddo might live another 20-30 years and history tells us;

a) He?s a raving nutter, and
b) He likes to acquire naughty toys.


Thus, my reasoning has been, that in this 20-30 year time period, the US is likely to be the only ?body? capable of removing him and this, right now, is also likely to be the only time in that 20-30 years when a US president has the balls / motivation / is stupid enough / whatever to go get the bad guy.
"

This logic might make sense if these events could happen in a vaccuum. But they don't.

(And how raving a nutter has Saddam really been these last years from a geopolitical perspective? WMDs aside, I actually find the humanitarian argument more persuasive than "the preemptive act against a known nutter hypothesis." Especially when it's seen to justify a unilateral, um, "coalition" war.)

Anyway, I only pose this response in this thread to you London because I know you will respond with a level head and I might actually get a clue. OTOH, you don't actually have to answer at all.

My underlying point though: I just don't get this kind of realpolitik analysis unless--as I think is true of some of the hawks--one believes that the only foreign policy advisible in the current world is an ongoing regime of aggressive neo-imperial domination by the United States--with a little help from whatever friends in Europe and elsewhere are willing to sign on.

[RandySpears]

originally posted by London_Calling
Fwiw, I never thought he had any viable WOMD and I still (just) supported the narrow goal of removing Saddo.

It was a pretext, I thought we (mostly) understood that. Otherwise the UN Inspectors wouldn’t have spent their time charging around finding nothing but would have, instead, headed for the honey pots.


London_calling: It couldn't be our favourite british PM hiding behind that alias, now? ;)

[Diogenes the Cynic]

It sounds like, no matter what, the Bush fans are never going to believe that the WMDs don't exist. If we get to Baghdad and search for weeks or months and don't find anything, well then, they're in Syria (a fat lot of good they're doing Hussein in Syria, btw). They're buried in the desert. They're hidden somewhere else and we'll find them eventually. After a few more months or a couple of years, everyone will forget all about them and it will be considered churlish to dredge the subject up in polite conversation.

The Muslim world won't forget, though.

[John Mace]

Elucidator:

Give the troops a few months before jumping to conclusions. The Iraqis have had 12 yrs to establish clandestine depots. You chided everyone for not giving the inspectors more time, and they've had YEARS to work this issue. So: GIVE THE TROOPS SOME MORE TIME. I think they have their hands full right now with certain other matters.

[Shodan]

We knew they had proscribed missiles before the war began.

"The experts concluded that, based on the data provided by Iraq, the two declared variants of the Al Samoud 2 missile wer capable of exceeding 150 kilometers in range. This missile system is therefore proscribed for Iraq." - Hans Blix, reported in the Washington Post, Feb. 14, 2003.

Powell mentioned that the biological agent production facilities were mobile, and I imagine the Iraqis are eager not to allow them to fall into allied hands.

The agreement of the cease-fire was that Iraq would destroy the WMD, and prove that this had been done. They refused to do the latter, and there is no reason to believe they did the former.

Regards,
Shodan

[Diogenes the Cynic]

It's impossible to do the latter.

[RandySpears]

John: The inspectors had between november 27th 2002 until the start of the war; hardly YEARS....

[Desmostylus]

How many times have we heard "Wolf!"

And every time, there's no WMD.

Now we're starting to hear that they've been transported across the border to Syria. And that Iran must halt its attempts to acquire weapons of mass destructions, and Pakistan must stop exporting weapons of mass destruction.

It's gonna take a long time, cost lotsa bucks, and kill lotsa people to find that fucking wolf.

At some point, it may occur to all of the countries on GWB's shit list that the only way out is to take out the U.S. altogether.

So it's no longer "mutually assured destruction" and peace, it's "kill the other fucker first".

[Philster]

Originally posted by Philster
Didn't you know you could wave a magic wand and make mustard gas and other agents vanish?

You mean you can't make it vanish.....you have to put it somewhere like a bunker or buried in a vault?

Oh, well then why doesn't someone just point to a bunker where it's buried? That's the problem. When the Iraqis had the weapons, they never denied having them, and it was no big secret.

When they agreed to disarm, they also happened to kick out anyone who was there to document what they were doing with the stuff.

You can't just toss the stuff in the trash, or run it down a garbage disposal, so then they should be able to point to a series of bunker or something!

Just think fo the effort in burying nuclear waste, as an example. Now imagine if the USA agreed to get rid of all it's nuclear reactor waste, right now. Then, we toss out anyone supervising the disposal of the waste. Then, seven years later, the inspectors come back and say "Hey, where'd you put all the waste?" and we answer "We destroyed it".

Um....no. That doesn't cut it.

You don't get rid of an arsenal of chemical/bio weapons and just claim you don't have it.

[John Mace]

Randy:

Maybe I was a bit unclear. The inspectors have been in and out of Iraq every since 1991. I don't know the exact dates, but I'm sure if added up all the time, it would come to "years". But even if we only count the latest inspecting effort, then let's give the troops at least 4 months before we start raving about "where are the WOMs". And remember that the SOLE purpose of the inpsectors was to look for weapons. The troops have other more important tasks to accomplish.

[John Mace]

Oops. WOMs should've been WMDs.

[Bibliovore]

Originally posted by Desmostylus
How many times have we heard "Wolf!"

And every time, there's no WMD.

Now we're starting to hear that they've been transported across the border to Syria. And that Iran must halt its attempts to acquire weapons of mass destructions, and Pakistan must stop exporting weapons of mass destruction.

It's gonna take a long time, cost lotsa bucks, and kill lotsa people to find that fucking wolf.

At some point, it may occur to all of the countries on GWB's shit list that the only way out is to take out the U.S. altogether.

So it's no longer "mutually assured destruction" and peace, it's "kill the other fucker first".

I couldn't agree more. I'm truly frightened by the hints that Syria may be hiding Iraq's WMDs. If we used them as a pretext to invade Iraq, what's to stop us from using them again as another pretext to invade Syria? I certainly wouldn't put it past this administration to try it. After all, Rumsfeld is already claiming that they're sending arms across the border, and that they will be "held accountable" So, after Iraq is reduced to rubble, we'll go after Syria, and then Iran...

Scary stuff indeed.

[elfje]

pentagon Official reply when he was asked why he was so sure Saddam had WMD:

"we kept the receipts"

...



:p

[Mandelstam]

John: ..."then let's give the troops at least 4 months before we start raving about "where are the WOMs"."

I agree that it's premature to conclude that WMDs of some kind won't be found. OTOH, I haven't noticed anyone "raving" in this thread. The OP was colorful in the manner of elucidator, but it was not, to my mind, an elucirave (if I may coin an expression). And if Randy or someone else was "raving" I must have missed it.

I may seem to making too much out of a single word, but I find that words such as "raving" and "shrill" are often cast about loosely, on and off these boards, by way of discrediting opinion on superficial grounds.

IIRC, the inspectors left Iraq in 1998--so we're talking about a hiatus of some duration.

[Mandelstam]

John: ..."then let's give the troops at least 4 months before we start raving about "where are the WOMs"."

I agree that it's premature to conclude that WMDs of some kind won't be found. OTOH, I haven't noticed anyone "raving" in this thread. The OP was colorful in the manner of elucidator, and arguably premature (as some have suggested). But it was not, to my mind, an elucirave (if I may coin an expression). And if Randy or someone else was "raving" I must have missed it.

I may seem to making too much out of a single word, but I find that words such as "raving" and "shrill" are often cast about loosely, on and off these boards, by way of discrediting opinion on superficial grounds.

IIRC, the inspectors left Iraq in 1998--so we're talking about a hiatus of some duration.

[Philster]

Oh, Iraq is on the record as claiming to have produced over -ahem- 10,000 tons (not a typo) and thousands of gallons of such things as:

VX
Trichothecenes
Aflatoxin
Sarins
Mustard Gases
Gangrene gas
Ricin
Botulinum
Anthrax
others

And they cannot account for any of it. Again, they claimed these in excess of 10,000 tons and hundreds of gallons of some and thousands of gallons of others. Do you think they under reported or over reported... and with these amounts does it matter?

[AZCowboy]

Shodan wrote:
"The experts concluded that, based on the data provided by Iraq, the two declared variants of the Al Samoud 2 missile wer capable of exceeding 150 kilometers in range. This missile system is therefore proscribed for Iraq." - Hans Blix, reported in the Washington Post, Feb. 14, 2003.

Powell mentioned that the biological agent production facilities were mobile, and I imagine the Iraqis are eager not to allow them to fall into allied hands.

The agreement of the cease-fire was that Iraq would destroy the WMD, and prove that this had been done. They refused to do the latter, and there is no reason to believe they did the former.

Hans Blix, Report to the UNSC (http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=414&sID=6), 3/7/03

Several inspections have taken place at declared and undeclared sites in relation to mobile production facilities. Food testing mobile laboratories and mobile workshops have been seen, as well as large containers with seed processing equipment. No evidence of proscribed activities has so far been found.
...
While during our meetings in Baghdad, the Iraqi side tried to persuade us that the Al Samoud 2 missiles they have declared fall within the permissible range set by the Security Council, the calculations of an international panel of experts led us to the opposite conclusion. Iraq has since accepted that these missiles and associated items be destroyed and has started the process of destruction under our supervision. The destruction undertaken constitutes a substantial measure of disarmament - indeed, the first since the middle of the 1990s. We are not watching the breaking of toothpicks. Lethal weapons are being destroyed.
...
Until today, 34 Al Samoud 2 missiles, including 4 training missiles, 2 combat warheads, 1 launcher and 5 engines have been destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision.[Emphasis added]

There is evidence that Iraq was providing proof of the destruction of banned weapons. What evidence is there to the contrary? You picked an odd example to make your point.

For clarification, simply having the al Samouds was not a violation of UNSC Resolution 1441, but failing to cooperate with their destruction would have been.

Using dated quotes from UNSC inspectors to imply that the UN knew Iraq to be in violation of 1441 (yet still failed to act) is unproductive to the debate, IMHO.

Further, it is beating a horse that may not be dead, but it ain't about to get up and walk around.

On preview, Philster, cite?

For example, when you say "And they cannot account for any of it," let's take VX as an example. At the end of GW1, Iraq claim to have remaining stock of 412.5 tons of VX in stock. 411 tons were destroyed under UNSCOM, only 1.5 tons remains unaccounted for.

While that is plenty to remain concerned, it highlights the exaggeration of your claim.

[RandySpears]

John:

As Elu pointed out, there was hardly any continuity between the inspections work before and after the 4-years when no inspections were allowed.

So saying the inspectors (and thereby implying Hans Blix et al)have had years is simply not correct. They got a couple of months.

[Philster]

When Iraq accepted the terms of the 1991 Gulf War cease-fire agreement, it agreed to destroy all its weapons of mass destruction. But after a senior Iraqi official defected in 1995, the nation admitted to producing biological and chemical agents that could be used as weapons of mass destruction. Here is a look at the chemical and biological agents Iraq claims to have manufactured in the past.

www.cnn.com

Details of chem/bio agents and amounts (under Iraq..Weapons)

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/weapons/index.html

[jkusters]

Originally posted by Bibliovore
So, after Iraq is reduced to rubble, we'll go after Syria, and then Iran...

[super-cynical-mode]
Making the world safe for Christianity...
[/super-cynical-mode]

JOhn.

[chappachula]

if you want a good reason to believe that Saddam has WMD--look at his famous 12,000 page report in which he documented "ALL" of Iraq's weapons.

The Iraqis swore that they had fully and completely listed EVERYTHING they had.Half the world, and blind-man Blix, fell for the lies.

Golly, gee whiz, what's this then?--all of a sudden, a few weeks later they "accidently" discovered a few barrels of toxins. Funny 'bout that--the closer the US Army got to Iraq, the more forbidden weapons Saddam "accidently" discovers.

If any intelligent person actually believes that Saddam's hands are clean, I can't figure out how. For decades every western country sold him all the raw materials, and (as elfje noted above) we have the receipts.
So we are supposed to believe that he flushed it all down the toilet, because Blix politely asked him to?

After 12000 pages of lies, I have a feeling that Saddam might not be the most honest guy around. We know he paid for the raw materials--if he cant prove he destroyed them, basic logic says he must still have
them.
And those chemical protection suits found in captured Iraqi army bases are a pretty good sign that somebody is planning to wear them.

[X~Slayer(ALE)]

Oh be patient. Wait another week. 2 weeks tops. You'll see.

[Philster]

"We don't have any weapons of mass destruction. My wife ....Morgan Fairchild.....yeah, that's the ticket....my wife got rid of them."

[rjung]

Even if we do find Iraq's hidden cache of WMDs, will we find the authorization from the UN Security Council for a military action? Or how about some evidence that Saddam was planning to use those WMDs to attack the United States?

Gonna take more than two weeks to find those, methinks.

[The Ace of Swords]

Wow, and Saddam was clearly right on the brink of bombing us with his yet-to-exist WMD's, huh? Look at how all his neighbors were covered with WMD's as soon as we attacked...

Like those chemical suits, which Saddam was clearly about to pack into a Al Saud, and launch at Kuwait.

[Finagle]

Originally posted by elucidator
How does someone know something exists, and not know where they are?

OK -- I have a flashlight that I recently misplaced. It exists. You now know it exists. Where is it?

Honestly, that may be one of the silliest lines I've ever seen, even in Great Debates. If they exist, the WMD would be military assets, and secret ones as well. Don't you think they'd be trying to hide them?

As for "And why hasn't this question been asked and answered?". Sheesh --don't you read *any* papers? It's been asked over and over again. Here's a transcript of a DOD briefing, for example.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2003/t03312003_t0331asd.html

Here's a transcript of an Ari Fleischer briefing.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030328-4.html

On television I heard a response that was approximately "We still don't control the area immediately around Baghdad where we suspect most of these assets would be located." In other words, we control a whole bunch of desert -- not the industrial or military areas where this stuff might be stored or developed.

Really, if you must suspect complicity between the press and the administration, couldn't you at least do some research first?


I have also seen speculation that the US is suppressing evidence of WMDs for the course of the ground war on the fairly reasonable grounds that once their existence is confirmed, the Iraqi regime will have no further reason not to use them.



So do the WMDs exist? Dunno. But it's far too early to be posting gloating "I told you so" OPs. I think the advice to wait four months or so is sound.

Two slightly off-topic points:

a. The use of the term "Bushista" isn't amusing or hip -- it's simply a semantic marker that indicates that the OP is so far from objective that it can be conveniently ignored by anyone lacking an agenda.

b. Someone named "Elucidator" should spend more time elucidating rather than fulminating. I don't mind the difference in our politics, but I do wish that the contrast between your user name and the content of your posts wouldn't peg my irony meter so consistently.

[AZCowboy]

Philster, your "cite" to the CNN homepage doesn't help substantiate your claim that "they cannot account for any of it."

Further, your second link, clearly states, "agents Iraq is suspected of having" hardly represents a smoking gun.

I am fully aware of the defection of Sadaam's son-in-law, Kamal Hussein, but I am unaware of any declaration by Iraq thereafter of any WoMD produced after the cease-fire agreement (feel free to correct my ignorance). We also know that defecting Iraqis have not been the most reliable source of information (and certainly Kamal would have had other motivations to damn Sadamm).

To chappachula, please educate me about these "barrels of toxins" to which you refer. Were these "barrels of toxins" WoMD? I should note that raw materials for CW/BW were not necessarily banned, but weaponized toxins, and related delivery systems were.

Have you read those 12,000 pages? Do you assert that you know that it was all lies? If so, how so? Do you consider Robin Cook to not be an intelligent person?

And let me make clear - I am not claiming that Sadaam does not possess WoMD or other banned weapon systems. I claim only that there is yet no proof. I also have no issue with those who would respond, "let's wait a few more months", ironic as it may be.

Continued assertions that this is a known fact as opposed to a combination of reasoned supposition and damning circumstantial evidence is tedious.

Does the pro-war side have to distort the facts to feel justified in their support for this war?

[Philster]

Cowboy: They ADMITTED to having the weapons, and you can;t flush them or make them go 'poof'.

POINT TO A STORAGE FACILITY WHERE THE AGENTS HAVE BEEN RESPONSIBLY STORED.

They can't. Now "WHY?" is the next question.

I guess they threw out inspectors because they wanted to do it honestly without them.

And CNN is a fine link/cite.

[RandySpears]

Philster:

How about trying to argue for the actual claim you made, or alternatively restating your claim?

[AZCowboy]

Philster, what RandySpears asked, as well as:

I agree, they ADMITTED to producing such WoMD prior to 1991. UNSCOM oversaw the destruction of the vast percentage of what was claimed to have existed. The question only remains as to what happened with the small percentage remaining.

Iraq has claimed to have destroyed it unilaterally. They have provided documentation to that effect to UNMOVIC. UNMOVIC was in the process of trying to verify Iraq's claims when they were pulled out to make way for this war.

They NEVER threw out the inspectors.

They can't point to a storage facility, because, they CLAIM they have no WoMD.

Why you put weight into their ADMISSION to the production, but completely discount their CLAIM to have destroyed them, is interesting. Which admission or claim is inaccurate, one, the other, or both?

And CNN is a fine source - I would certainly accept it - but the homepage does not support the claims you have made.

Why should I or any reader of this thread trust your claims, if you can't back them up with even some evidence? You have done even less than the Iraqis.

[Philster]

Agent: Anthrax
Type: Bacteria
Symptoms: Inhaled anthrax -- lung problems, terminal shock. Skin anthrax -- lesions, blood poisoning.
Outcome: Death, if untreated. Not contagious.
Status: Iraq claims production of 2,200 gallons. U.N. unable to verify present status.

Source: International Institute for Strategic Studies

[Philster]

Just a snippet:

'Our net assessment of the current situation is that:

Iraq has probably retained substantial growth media and BW agent (perhaps thousands of litres of anthrax) from pre 1991 stocks.
The regime is capable of resuming BW Agent production on short notice (in weeks) from existing civilian facilities. It could have produced thousands of litres of anthrax, botulinum toxin and other agents since 1998. Actual stocks cannot be known.
Iraqi production of viral agents is unknown as is the question of whether the regime possesses small pox.'


Read the whole IISS dosier here:

http://www.iiss.org/news-more.php?itemID=88

[DrDeth]

SH HAD tons & gallons of WMD. He admitted as such. He claimed he destroyed it- but not only is there no evidence he did so, but no records, either- and the Iraqis keep good records. So what happened to it?

[Philster]

from link:


"Conclusion


In conclusion, war, sanctions and inspections have reversed and retarded, but not eliminated Iraq’s nuclear, biological and chemical weapons and long range missile capacities, nor have they removed Baghdad’s enduring interest in developing these capacities. The retention of WMD capacities by Iraq is self-evidently the core objective of the regime, for it has sacrificed all other domestic and foreign policy goals to this singular aim. It has retained this single objective, and pursued it in breach of the ceasefire and UN Security Council Resolutions that brought a conditional end to the 1991 Gulf War. Over more than eleven years the Iraqi regime has sought to evade its obligations and undermine support for the sanctions and inspections regime meant to eliminate its WMD capacities and contain its ambitions. Iraq has fought a relatively successful diplomatic war of attrition. It is worth recalling that the international debate 18 months ago was centred on how sanctions against Iraq might be relaxed, and inspections concluded with some dispatch in light of the dwindling willingness to support the containment policy developed in 1991. "

The US and other countries refer to IISS reports and use them in forming opinion. IISS does not make suggestions on how to handle different situations (like disarming Iraq)

[AZCowboy]

Why, Philster, thanks for that. More "unverified present status" from the page of "suspected" weapons. Grand.

In 1995, Iraq acknowledges to having produced 8,445 litres of Bacillus anthracis spores (10 fold concentrated) prior to 1991. At the same time, they claimed to have unilaterally destroyed 3,412 litres of anthrax in 1991.

How does that match up with, "they cannot account for any of it"? See further my previous comments on VX.

On preview, more the "has probably", "could have", and "is unknown." Why should I read the dossier - every quote you've offered supports my position! Where does it say that they haven't accounted for any of it!

On second preview, I agree with the conclusion of the ISS dossier. I also note that it was written prior to the passing of UNSC Resolution 1441, and fails to incorporate any of the information provided by Iraq under 1441 or evaluated by UNMOVIC more recently. I also note that it fails to support your original assertion.

DrDeth, there is some evidence that he destroyed it, but I will be first to agree that the evidence he provided is quite weak, and that UNMOVIC has been unable to verify its destruction. There were records. UNMOVIC had existing action items to follow up on records they were provided to verify destruction. They were following that regimen when they were withdrawn by the UN.

So what happened to it? I have no idea. It is likely still there. But at least I can admit that such a conclusion is based on reasoned supposition and damning circumstantial evidence. I admit I have no proof. Will you?

And I repeat:

Continued assertions that this [Iraq's possession of WoMD] is a known fact as opposed to a combination of reasoned supposition and damning circumstantial evidence is tedious.

Does the pro-war side have to distort the facts to feel justified in their support for this war?

[AZCowboy]

Let me make one clarification on my last post. In that post, I said, "agree with the conclusion of the ISS dossier."

For clarity, I agree with every sentence except, "It has retained this single objective, and pursued it in breach of the ceasefire and UN Security Council Resolutions that brought a conditional end to the 1991 Gulf War."

The only problem I have with that sentence is that violation of obligations under UNSC Resolution 687 (the cease-fire) did not constitute a breach, as those were not conditions to the cease-fire. Under 687, violations of the obligations were the responsibility of the UNSC to determine appropriate action.

This clarification really has nothing to do with anything in this thread, but to protect positions I have taken with respect to this issue in other threads.

[bbonden]

I agree that the evidence of WMD given to we plebes is largely circumstantial.

I have yet to see, however, a single political figure -- that is, someone with access to a state intelligence agency -- so much as doubt whether Iraq actually has WMD. Heck, Chirac all but came out and said that in his opinion the WMD were there. (Time Magazine, 2/16/03 ("it is probable").)

I agree that the Bushies have wagered a large stack of credibility on their ability to find WMD. I don't know if they can or will come through (or, for that matter, whether they care about their credibility).) But I do not doubt that the WMD are there somewhere.

[MLS]

The point is that Resolution 1441 said that Iraq had to prove the WMD were destroyed, not that the inspectors had to prove they weren't destroyed. Big difference. There is no proof they were destroyed. There was no particular willingness on the part of SH to prove they were destroyed. This means there is a violation of the terms of the first gulf war, and a violation of 1441. Every time actual consequences became apparent, there was a grudging trickle of information and a wheedle for just a little more time. They had 12 years!!!! And then another couple of months. And then another couple of weeks, and another..... It reminded me of nothing more than the way spoiled children manipulate their parents, or the way hardened criminals manipulate and distort the criminal justice system. Enough, already. You won't show us your weapons, then we will show you ours.

[RandySpears]

Return: the wonderful "legality of this war" discussion, known to hijack any thread at will...

MLS: Let me just quickly state that

- the majority of international observers find this war to be illegal, and validity claims based on 1441 and the old GW I resolutions to be false.

- the inspectors did very much not have 12 years. they did have since november last year.

Now, let's return to discussing the OP, shall we?

[AZCowboy]

Thanks bblonden, for having the intellectual honesty to frame the debate with facts. I will note that one political figure, Robin Cook, whom should be in a place to know, doubts whether Iraq has WoMD.

MLS, this thread isn't the place, but you have misrepresented what 1441 set out to do (you can't prove a negative!), it does NOT mean there was a violation of the cease-fire agreement, or a violation of 1441 (and certainly no UN authorization for the use of force in either case). While the rest of your second paragraph is generally accurate, do you justify war on circumstantial evidence?

If you will simply admit the facts, we can have a reasoned debate.

I ask, for the third time:

Continued assertions that this [Iraq's possession of WoMD] is a known fact as opposed to a combination of reasoned supposition and damning circumstantial evidence is tedious.

Does the pro-war side have to distort the facts to feel justified in their support for this war?

It absolutely boggles my mind, considering I believe the pro-war side has plenty of facts on their side. Why can't they stick with facts to support their position?!

[AZCowboy]

Once was fine, twice had effect, the third was too much.

I apologize for the third repeat of my question.

[John Mace]

Randy:

What will it take for me to get you to agree to 4 months? Come on, man! I said I'd waive all the previous inspections and go mano a mano with the most recent inspection phase. So, can we agree on 4 months? Hell, I'll take 3 months if you'll give it to me.
Damn, you Europeans are an impatient bunch...

[RandySpears]

John:

Heh, well this impatient european was responding to MLS :) Let's settle for 4 months!

[John Mace]

Wow, I completely blew that one. Not sure why I thought you were responding to me. Anyway, 4 months it is! I'm looking forward to discussing this in July.

[RandySpears]

No problem!

Disclaimer though: there is in my view no way to get legitimacy for this war after it has been made a fact.

[elucidator]

The progress of this thread well demonstrates my basic premise: we don't know. Adamant advocates of this war are insistent of certainty, they will admit of no doubt. Yet counter posters have demonstrated the existence of doubt, to say the least.

Myself, as I said, I don't know. I do not accept the premise that finding them at this late date will place a stamp of legitimacy on an illegitimate enterprise. If they exist, that doesn't make us right, but if they don't, we are really really wrong.

What troubles me more is the question of intelligence as it relates to this issue. Our leaders state flatly, without a quiver or quibble, that they know those weapons exist. But how does this intelligence come about?

If it were a human source, a snitch, as it were, then said source would not only know that they existed, but where they were. But our leaders insist that they know that they exist, but cannot say where.

Imagine it, if you will. Hakkim Ratout calls the CIA. "Saddams got 10,000 liters of VX" "Cool, where is it?" "I don't know".

Does that strike anyone else as faintly odd? How does it come about that one knows that something like that exists but doesn't know where?

When this suspicion is coupled with such intelligence failures as we are already well aware (though some of you are rather more forgiving in this regard than am I....very, very forgiving) one has to wonder. And if you don't wonder, why not? What faith, surpassing all understanding, forms the foundation of your assurance?

Please keep in mind, I really don't have a formed opinion. It is, to my mind, equally plausible that Saddam has these weapons as that he hasn't. What concerns me is that Our Leader is so utterly certain and yet will not, or cannot, say why or how. Despite this, he is entirely willing to proceed to war.

And now we control the greater part of the country. Can anyone doubt, either here or there, than anyone who can point out the location of these dreadful weapons will curry enormous favor witht the coming administration? And none has come forth? Did Saddam bury them in the desert all by himself, and told no one?

Are they all in Baghdad? The most populous city in the country? Do we keep ours in New York? San Francisco? And does it strike no one else as interesting that as time goes on, and we still haven't found anything, the emphasis is shifting to our noble aspirations for the Iraqi people? What was originally sold to us as absolutely essential war for our own securtiy is now a selfless excercise in nation building?

Was it Thoreau said something like "The more he talked about his integirty, the faster we counted the silverware."?

[RandySpears]

Elu, entrance London_calling:

Fwiw, I never thought he had any viable WOMD and I still (just) supported the narrow goal of removing Saddo.

It was a pretext, I thought we (mostly) understood that. Otherwise the UN Inspectors wouldn’t have spent their time charging around finding nothing but would have, instead, headed for the honey pots.

[London_Calling]

Originally posted by Mandelstam
London: "But here?s the thing. Saddo might live another 20-30 years and history tells us;

a) He?s a raving nutter, and
b) He likes to acquire naughty toys.


Thus, my reasoning has been, that in this 20-30 year time period, the US is likely to be the only ?body? capable of removing him and this, right now, is also likely to be the only time in that 20-30 years when a US president has the balls / motivation / is stupid enough / whatever to go get the bad guy.
"

This logic might make sense if these events could happen in a vaccuum. But they don't.

(And how raving a nutter has Saddam really been these last years from a geopolitical perspective? WMDs aside, I actually find the humanitarian argument more persuasive than "the preemptive act against a known nutter hypothesis." Especially when it's seen to justify a unilateral, um, "coalition" war.)

Anyway, I only pose this response in this thread to you London because I know you will respond with a level head and I might actually get a clue. OTOH, you don't actually have to answer at all.

My underlying point though: I just don't get this kind of realpolitik analysis unless--as I think is true of some of the hawks--one believes that the only foreign policy advisible in the current world is an ongoing regime of aggressive neo-imperial domination by the United States--with a little help from whatever friends in Europe and elsewhere are willing to sign on.

Always interested in intelligent discource, Mandelstam :)


Perhaps, in relation to how to deal with Saddam, a lot hinges on how we view 9/11. I am willing to accept that the mooted theory of a new paradigm became a reality on 9/11; that ‘terrorism’ in relation to US policy in the Middle-east had moved on from the era when disaffected youths waved AK 47’s on hijacked planes (that they’d later blow up on a desert airstrip) to middle-class, educated professional family men undergoing months of training and planning before killing themselves and thousands others. It really is, for me, a different type of threat; in my view, the west, and the US in particular, is in most serious bother once the Islamic middle-classes become pro-active dissenters.

And, of course, we have no evidence of Saddam’s involvement in 9/11. But he represents a potential facilitator (aka ‘State-sponsored terrorism’) – like Gaddafi with various organizations in the late ‘70’s and 80’s. Except Gaddaif supplied the disaffected with conventional weaponry.


Actually, I do see US foreign policy differently. I do accept that some hawks see this as an opportunity to impose their own brand of capitalist ideology on the world; for example, that Iraq represents the dominant market player (US.Inc) acquiring a valuable asset, etc. – this is Cheney’s free-market, amoral, unfettered, ‘the market is right’ philosophy and he, genuinely, sees nothing wrong with acquiring Iraq. That is, if you will, the new (capitalist-global market) ‘hyper-power’ paradigm.

But, also, you don’t mention that important and more conventional formulator of US foreign policy, Israel. The US does not act to the detriment of Israel. Period. Indeed, one might argue the US only acts to the benefit of Israel, IMHO, whether to the personal cost (in policy terms) of the US or not –no new ideology there, just old-fashioned, highly influencial self-interest.

So I acknowledge there are influences on this particular US foreign policy that don’t bode well for anything approaching ‘moral’ or ‘ethical’ developments. Having said that, what are we to make of the new “Middle-East road map” ? Is it more of the same (20-30 years of disillusionment and US lies) or is Bush going to continue to surprise with his naïve yet robust style (damn, that was polite !) ?

Could it actually be that (in relation to Blair) he is a man of his word and that, because of the (apparent) demise of Arafat, a new era could unfold ?

At least, the Israeli press takes this new road map seriously. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2895307.stm)

” 'The biggest of Israel's enemies', they call him [Tony Blair] with a certain self-conscious exaggeration at the prime minister's office. Blair is an enemy because he is pressuring President Bush to publish the road map as a signed, final act, the opposite of Sharon's conception, who sees the road map as a preliminary draft, an aspiration.”

I think without question, the price of Blair’s support is this ‘road map’. The question then becomes, how much does Bush want to repay his debt to Blair; is he willing to face down Israeli self-interests, maybe Israel can buy into the new Palestinian leadership, what of US/UK relations if Bush repeats his fathers mistakes (shafting support in the interests of Israel) and what of that given that the UK is the fig leaf hiding the blushes of the US from (otherwise) demonstrable naked Isolationism ?

And finally, can the US consider leaving Saudi with a ‘sympathetic’ Iraqi regime in place – how will that pan out, does it necessarily have to be worse (from an Islamic perspective). Ain’t no Medina or Mecca in Iraq !

The US less reliant on Saudi, a Palestinian road map on the table, the bad Muslim Saddam not oppressing Muslims … how much is that starting to look like something OBL and the boys could see as progress ?


Any thoughts, can Blair move a Palestinain state any nearer, am I as naive as he is .... ?

[London_Calling]

Actually, I wanted to mention (in the above post) something about the consequences of ‘Gulf War – the second half’ for International Law and even the UN as a credible org .. but I guess I’ll wait and see how any responses are framed …. :eek:

[elucidator]

I say, old wart. Bit of a hi-jack, what?

[London_Calling]

luci, old cock. We both think the WOMD is Spielberg, Sam Stone's not here to tell us otherwise (presumably in the garden building a tin-foil lined bomb shelter), so let's talk about something else ?

How about our top ten disco favourites ... or, shirley, I could just respond to dear old mandi 's inquiry ?

[elucidator]

Shirley? You jest!

One can hardly go wrong responding to Mandy under any circumstances. Especially as she is involved in the most profoundly worthy of human endeavors.

Quite right, old spotted dick. Freak freely. Mi casa es su casa, my thread is yours.

[Philster]

I know the beginning of this is off the OP, so ignore it if you must.

Is this all Catch-22 for the war/anti-war argument? For example, nothing constitutes saying factually they have WMD unless someone actually finds them, or finds a 'smoking gun' that shows they were producing them after X date, etc.

And as soon as that happened, the argument would become "well now that we are finding them, we don't need to start a war, so let the inspectors work".

In other words, nothing framed around some of these arguments could lead to war, so Iraq had nothing to lose by continuing to pursue WMD. Iraq capitalized on this working catch-22 for years.

Yes, the US had to play the UN game framed around finding WMD and pursue it that way, when the real issue was that they were working off reasonable conclusions based on alot of intelligence information and also what is considered general knowledge in the international community.

So to tie it back to the OP somehow: it doesn't matter a lick whether Iraq had WMD or not. If there were numerous found bunkers, fresh lab work and other "proof" that they had/pursued WMD, we still would not have a new UNSC Res. authorizing force.

Heck, "inspections are working" arguments would ring through and that would squelch any agreement for use of force.

So, while you can hint that the pro-war folks need to substantiate factually where the WMP are, the pro-war folks can tell you they don't give a rat's ass where they are, because if Blix would have fell into them coming off his plane, there still would be no justification for a war since - argh!- "inspections are working".

Where are they? Here -shoving your face into them- they are right here. Now can we destroy the regime? NO!? Why not? Because inspections work!

Great!

[Mandelstam]

London, thanks for the thoughtful reply. I promise to respond to it, but probably not today.

'lu: "Especially as she is involved in the most profoundly worthy of human endeavors."

You mean teaching British history? ;)

[rjung]

Originally posted by Philster
Where are they? Here -shoving your face into them- they are right here. Now can we destroy the regime? NO!? Why not? Because inspections work!
Well, what's the end goal here? Is our objective to disarm Iraq and destroy whatever WMDs they have? Or is our objective to overthrow the Saddam Hussein government (none of this "regime change" euphemism, I'm sick of it) because the United States dislikes it?

Because George W. Bush has used both arguments (along with others) as his justification for war. And the fact that you've stumbled across is that they're incompatable goals.

1. If what you really want is to disarm Iraq, then inspections should be allowed to continue, so long as they produce results that lead to disarmament. You ultimately will end up with a WMD-free Iraq with Hussein as ruler, but that's okay, because ousting Saddam wasn't the point.

2. And if what you really want is to overthrow Saddam Hussein, then citing WMDs and disarmament and UN resolutions is just so much bullstuff, because none of those things involve tossing out the mustachio'd bum. But then, you'd have to admit on a world stage that you're a superpowered bully, who targets foreign leaders on a whim.

The Bush Administration, in a case of self-inflicted stupidity, tried to have it both ways -- they wanted to use #1 as an excuse for conducting #2. But since Iraq hasn't been resistant to Hans Blix's inspections, the UN refused to play along, and a pissed-off Dubya decided to have #2 anyway. Which explains why the situation we're in today is one big sh*tpile...

[Philster]

Originally posted by rjung
The Bush Administration, in a case of self-inflicted stupidity, tried to have it both ways -- they wanted to use #1 as an excuse for conducting #2. But since Iraq hasn't been resistant to Hans Blix's inspections, the UN refused to play along, and a pissed-off Dubya decided to have #2 anyway. Which explains why the situation we're in today is one big sh*tpile...

Right. I thought these points were 'givens' in any argument about "where are the WMD?".

It's not about WMD. It's about taking down Saddam and stabilizing a key area....while we still can and while we still can piggy-back it politically off of some UN crap about WMD and Iraq's games.

Now, in the end, I actually think this war will help the region and I understand Bush and Rumsfeld and others have Christian beliefs that pushed it to happen. It's not about WMD, and it's silly for any conservative to argue and justify that weapons exist someplace down to the hard, cold truth/proof/fact level.

I also understand that Human Rights issues are ignored elsewhere, but there isn't an iota of chance that we can crank up a war effort against other regimes unless we have some maleable excuse to offer the public.

[AZCowboy]

Philster, thanks for reframing and excluding the black/white dichotomy. I am even comfortable with "the real issue was that they were working off reasonable conclusions based on alot of intelligence information and also what is considered general knowledge in the international community".

I would be tempted to point out the fallacy of assuming our intelligence information is beyond question. I would be tempted to talk about the international law equivalent of due process thresholds "beyond a reasonable doubt. But I won't.

However, it is not fair to suggest, "it doesn't matter a lick whether Iraq had WMD or not. If there were numerous found bunkers, fresh lab work and other "proof" that they had/pursued WMD, we still would not have a new UNSC Res. authorizing force." - Your catch-22 issue.

I can only answer such a hypothetical with a hypothetical, so I am only offering a perspective IMHO, and do not wish to debate it. But I thought you deserved a response.

IMO, assuming nothing would justify an authorization for the use of force by the UNSC is untenable. I would assume that if Blix and Co. ran across two rotting barrels of anthrax buried twenty feet under the sand 100 yards from where the Iraqi had claimed it was buried, that the UNSC would not find it a material breach, but poor surveying or record keeping.

On the other hand, if Blix and company came across an active clandestine underground lab currently producing BW, with vats still bubbling, and fermenters still fermenting, that simply cooperating with the destruction would not have been sufficient. I believe such evidence would have generated a unanimous UNSC authorization for the use of force to disarm Iraq. For the US, this process would have met their needs, because it would be the equivalent to regime change (I do not think Saddam would allow US/UN troops to occupy his country without fighting).

So, that said, I find your catch-22 scenario as a fallacy of the false dilemma.

What I find most interesting from your comments in your last two posts is that you seem to agree that the whole issue related to WoMD is a red herring.

Now, I'll put forward another theory. The most of the anti-war folks, myself included, really hope that WoMD are found, as I think it will go a long way toward tempering anti-American sentiments generated by our recent actions.

But I put forward that it is the pro-war crowd that REALLY needs for WoMD to be found, to assuage their conscience for supporting the POTUS on the justification he presented. As evidence for this theory, I'll note the threads on this board related to the premature reports of these "found" violations. Read the threads, and see which side seems more anxious to believe these reports were real. Wishful thinking at the time, but indicative of the underlying anxiety.

[rjung]

Originally posted by Philster
It's not about WMD.
If not, then why has the Administration been framing it as such?

(Actually, I continue to maintain that it's all about oil, but I know the chances of the Administration admitting that are right up there with O.J. Simpson admitting he killed Nicole Brown Simpson. But that's a different topic.)

It's about taking down Saddam and stabilizing a key area....while we still can and while we still can piggy-back it politically off of some UN crap about WMD and Iraq's games.
So you don't have a problem with the President of the United States lying to the citizens and to the rest of the world? :eek:

Now, in the end, I actually think this war will help the region
A belief that's contradicted by numerous experts in Middle Eastern politics, and by a classified State Department study.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Originally posted by Philster
Right. I thought these points were 'givens' in any argument about "where are the WMD?".

It's not about WMD. It's about taking down Saddam and stabilizing a key area....while we still can and while we still can piggy-back it politically off of some UN crap about WMD and Iraq's games.

Now, in the end, I actually think this war will help the region and I understand Bush and Rumsfeld and others have Christian beliefs that pushed it to happen. It's not about WMD, and it's silly for any conservative to argue and justify that weapons exist someplace down to the hard, cold truth/proof/fact level.

I also understand that Human Rights issues are ignored elsewhere, but there isn't an iota of chance that we can crank up a war effort against other regimes unless we have some maleable excuse to offer the public. I am happy to for the argument to be shed of the bullshit as well. Getting right down to it, you suggest that it is about getting rid of Hussein and stabilizing a key area. I know that you acknowledge other areas where abuses of human rights are occuring, but there are other areas where greater instability is occuring, largely distinct from human rights abuses. In fact, there is one country that is much more involved in instability in the middle east than Iraq has been in more than a decade, but the Bush approach to Israel was explicitly to leave its hands off (thus tolerating a staggering increase in regional instability). Greater instability reigns between Pakistan and India. Greater instability is now the case in North Korea. So I am left believing that this will do nothing to make a meaningful difference in the stability of that region, and wouldn't have been job one on the world-stabilizing list to begin with. (Nor, BTW, were they number one on the human rights abuses AT PRESENT in the first place).

So if we are shed of that aspect of fallacy as well, we are left with only the element of Get Saddam. This, in my opinion, is a fine end indeed. The means we are using, however, are wholly inappropriate, and are going to do much to worsen world stability rather than improve it. Finally, I think that our excuse in this case was far too maleable - those who are buying it now would probably have supported Get Saddam without it. Most people aren't.

[ElvisL1ves]

WMD's are a sideshow, really. The overarching rationale we have been sold for this war is that Saddam is not only an evil bastard but represents a serious and imminent threat to the security of the US and the world. A few barrels of juice rotting in the desert, even if they exist, would not materially affect the substance of that rationale. The nuke-in-six-months part of the argument isn't even seriously suggested anymore except by the aluminum-tube fetishists, and even those who are absolutely the bio and chem weapons exist seem to acknowledge that they're being held for defensive use against an invader.

I'd even bet that they do exist, and do not even have to be planted, although it wouldn't surprise me. But something will be found, and not only to defuse a major theme of criticism of Bush - the many people who have bought the Bush rationale have their own psychological need to believe they have made the right decision. Even if Bush refrains from the told-you-so's when the rotting barrels are found, the chorus will jump on it for their own self-vindication, the way many of them jumped on Clinton's blowjob as vindication for their earlier "knowledge" about other things that turned out to be fantasies.

Meanwhile, the argument that "We just know it's there, it's just obviously in the less than half of the country we haven't searched yet" argument is no better than a tautology, and is getting more risible every day. At some point the entire country will have been searched, and the argument will shift to "He just smuggled it into Syria before we got there, or maybe gave it to 'an Al Qaeda-type organization' (Bush's words)." Bets?

[Hentor the Barbarian]

I take back everything I said in my previous post. I had no idea that Bush had such a keen insight into the matter, until I read this qoute from him. "I understand that the unrest in the Middle East creates unrest throughout the region."—George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., March 13, 2002Wow. And I thought Condoleeza Rice was supposed to be well schooled in international affairs.

[Philster]

I grant you those points AZ, rjung, Hentor. But we are trying to get at what they in power believe and what their motivations are.

Sure, how could you talk about instability in regions without talking about Isreal, Pakistan/India, Koreas, and so on! I know, but as for the general public, they'll accept the administration's fodder. The admin is getting 70% or more to swallow the fodder.

Now that we are in it, I want us to do it right, win outright and improve the damn country. As a conservative, I don't like the antiwar rhetoric during the war, but I won't squelch those doing it. I just don't like it, because it 'might' result in some limited result, when the best result at this point is just a complete turnaround for Iraq and some good PR.

As for the whole plan for dealing with the middle east, that's for another day. Too many ethnic and religious factors for me to even offer a suggestion.

Where are the WMD? It's a moot point, unless you are a conservative whose logical debating life depends on it.

[Rooster]

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Philster
I also understand that Human Rights issues are ignored elsewhere, but there isn't an iota of chance that we can crank up a war effort against other regimes unless we have some maleable excuse to offer the public.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doesn't this make anyone else (who is not living in the U.S ) very very nervous? I mean, is it really OK for the US to decide who is a BAD GUY, and then go pound the shit out of them, as long as American public opinion can be convinced? Is this REALLY a reasonable way to conduct foreign policy?

[Philster]

Rooster: Nope.

It's reality, so why waste time with WMD arguements?

[Rooster]

Yikes!