Speculation II: When Iraqi WMD are found, how will war opponents explain them away?

[Jackmannii]

In this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?&threadid=174721), RickJay postulates some likely excuses to be used by war proponents if, as he apparently sees likely, no proof is found of Iraqi WMDs.

Since Saddam's lust for possession and use of such weaponry has been amply demonstrated in recent years, I find it very hard to believe no such armament will be turned up*. When it is found, I suggest one or more of the following excuses will be heard:

1) The weapons in question are not really WMD. Such-and-such a missile, while maybe technically illegal for Iraq to have, is not really a WMD. Weaponry X is really for self-defense, and there's no proof that Saddam would have used it on other nations. Poison gas? Crowd control. Bacteriologic warfare stocks? Vaccine research.

2) The most popular option - the weapons were planted by the U.S. armed forces/CIA/Kurdish separatists/little green men. Conspiracy theorists will have a field day speculating about how discoveries of forbidden weaponry are proof of the evil machinations of the Bushite hegemonists.
A poll taken of Guardian readers after the fact will reveal 83% of those surveyed believe the WMD were planted.

3) The WMD would never have been used on coalition forces or stockpiled were it not for the invasion/continual outside threats on Iraq - the "you made me do it" theory. Supporters of this idea will claim that Iraq sought and made WMD to protect itself, or at the worst to compel the rest of the world to end sanctions on its starving citizenry, not as part of any hostile intent against neighbors or internal dissidents.

Which of these (or other options) do you think will be the most popularly employed to deny upcoming revelations?




*the OP should not be construed as an alteration of my conviction that this war was a mistake and that any putative benefits will be far outweighed by negative consequences.

[december]

I beat you by 7 minutes (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=174744). In the interests of consolidating the two threads, I will repeat my speculation here:
-- Apologize, and give Bush and Blair credit for doing the right thing, even in the face of their opposition.
-- Allege that the WMD could have been eliminated without military action.
-- Deny that the WMD finds are genuine.
-- Deny that the WMD finds are significant.
-- Explain that we knew about the WMD all the time, so finding them is old news.
-- Change the subject; explain that Bush is an evil fascist for some other reason.

[erislover]

One.

[Emilio Lizardo]

Well, since most of the war opponents (at least on this board) have never denied the possibility that Saddam has WMDs, I don't think any explanation will be required. So, thank you for not smoking near that straw man.

[Duke]

I agree with Emilio. IMHO the prevailing belief among opponents of the war is that the charges of WMD were not proven, not necessarily unjustified. It's akin to a criminal trial where circumstantial evidence (past activity, suspicious behavior) points to a "guilty" verdict, but there is significant reasonable doubt, and certainly no incontrovertable evidence.

As many in the other thread have noted, most opponents of the war believe that WMDs were merely an excuse for actions that the US wanted to undertake. If it wasn't WMD that proved the trigger, something else would have been found.

So, no explanation necessary.

[AZCowboy]

I, for one, will be overjoyed, and relieved.

The pain of not finding them is not something I look forward to.

And I will stand behind my criticisms of this administration's handling of events leading to war.

[ElJeffe]

Sr. Lizardo is correct. War opponents will say it doesn't matter that WMDs were found, that doesn't justify going against the UN. And that's the most convenient argument, because it doesn't require any concessions at all. Saddam had 10,000 tons of VX? Who cares? Shoulda gone through the UN. Enough small pox to infect the entire eastern seaboard? Shoulda gone through the UN. 50 nukes, each painted with "Destination: US"? Can we say "UN", boys and girls? However big a threat we later find Saddam to have been, and however imminent the threat was, it's all irrelevant, because you don't violate the wishes of the Church of the Holy UN.

Alternately:

- WMDs are irrelevant because war is always bad (for the Hollywood set)
- WMDs are irrelevant because we gave them to him and it would serve us right to get nuked/gassed/infected (for the college intelligentsia)
- WMDs are irrelevant because Bush is a Nazi, or because "No war for oil!" (for those who don't pretend to be logical)
- WMDs are irrelevant because, while the war is a good idea, Bush is a tool, therefore anything he does is bad, and he was selected-not-elected (for the truly partisan)


I expect to see all these and more after we find Saddam's stash. A grand time will be had by all.


Jeff

[CyberPundit]

Out of December's choices I would pick:
"Explain that we knew about the WMD all the time, so finding them is old news."
I have always believed that Saddam does have some biological and chemical weapons. However
a)Many countries possses such weapons including other nasty, dictatorships.
b)Saddam has possessed such weapons for more than 20 years and there was no evidence that they were a significant strategic threat to the US. They didn't stop the US from evicting Iraq from Kuwait.
c) Invasion makes it MORE likely that these weapons will land in the hands of terrorists when the regime reaches the points where it thinks it has nothing to lose. People are being highly naive when they seem to excpect that the weapons will be just lying there for American troops to find. Chances are many of them will be distributed to the die-hard supporters of the regime who will likely sell or give them to terrorists.

The bottom line is that the war will damage American security ,maybe seriously, for this and other reasons.

[Beagle]

Can I go for all of the above, or do I have to pick one? I'm posting in this thread. I did not see yours. Moreover, seven minutes is de minimis. ;)

[glee]

You really should read this thread:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...threadid=172697

to see why it won't change Arab opinion of the US whether weapons are found or not.
Pay particular attention to the Baghdad resident who remarks (on seeing the massive effects of US bombing) something like 'why are these guys searching for weapons of mass destruction?"

As for December's possible strategies:

1. Apologize, and give Bush and Blair credit for doing the right thing, even in the face of their opposition.

Why would we need to apologise? Surely you don't think the anti-war movement is all about not expecting to find WOMD? Did you ever think some of us care about civilians (and friendly fire)?

Why didn't Bush + Blair get a second UN resolution?
How much resentment is Bush causing all around the world? Would you describe him as a master diplomat?

Why is the US making alliances with countries that don't respect human rights? Didn't they learn from promoting Sadam as the 'answer' to Iran?

2. Allege that the WMD could have been eliminated without military action.

As indeed they were being.
I accept that the threat of invasion helped enforce the weapons inspection.
But why did the US go in, just when the inspectors were making progress?

3. Deny that the WMD finds are genuine.

Truth is the first casualty of war.
I personally don't think Bush would plant WOMD.
But since he went in without the UN, how will he defend himself from this accusation?
Do you think terrorist groups (and hostile Governments) will be able to persuade their followers easily enough?

4. Deny that the WMD finds are significant.

Well we know the US (and others) sold Sadam this stuff.
Of course he hasn't used it for over a decade, and the weapons inspectors were making progress.....


5. Explain that we knew about the WMD all the time, so finding them is old news.

See above.

6. Change the subject; explain that Bush is an evil fascist for some other reason.

I think Bush has squandered the natural world-wide sympathy for the US after the 9/11 atrocity.
When Bush offers Turkey billions of dollars and they turn him down, you just know something is wrong.

When polls all over the world say Bush should have got a second UN resolution, you know something is wrong.

Do you really think this was a timely decision?

[xenophon41]

Jackmannii, I understand the reason for this thread, but I have to wonder who you're talking about in the subject line? According to your footnote, you yourself believe the war is a mistake; wouldn't that make you a "war opponent"? And I'm sure you know how you'll respond when/if WMD's are found. I suspect it won't be one of the three options outlined, but rather something along the lines of Cyber Pundit's last sentence.

As far as which of your listed stories will be most popular, I think we all expect that many people around the world are now deeply distrustful of the US; #2 will be frequently floated, it's a given. But your #'s 1 and 3 seem extremely unlikely to be popularly believed (poison gas for "crowd control"?!).

Although I'm absolutely certain the US government will be held to very high standards of proof when they attempt to label various medical facilities as "biological weapons laboratories", I find it difficult to believe the existence of VX, sarin, smallpox or anthrax strains, or other real WMD's (as opposed to missiles capable of carrying chemicals) would be defended so sanguinely by any appreciable percentage of war opponents.

(Of course, we've seen sillier beliefs catch on

[xenophon41]

...so it wouldn't be out of the question that "the US made him do it" gets bandied about.)

[EasyPhil]

The WMD's are a red herring. The oppostion to the invasion is about the unilateral attack of another much weaker country and doing so outside of the framework of the United Nations and without popular support for the invasion.

[erislover]

I took that as a bit of hyperbole, xen. We've already heard people say, "Sure, that stuff is illegal according to resolutions, but it isn't like an active nuke or anything." They find VX? "Well, sure, that's technically WMD, but it wasn't deliverable or anything..." *yawn*

We all know people disagreed with this war. Two things are important now: rebuilding Iraq properly, and holding the US accountable for any crimes it committed or treaties it violated.

No points for being right or wrong.

[RickJay]

Actually, Jackmannii, I do NOT consider it likely that no WMDs will be found. I think it likelier than not that some will in fact be found. Kindly don't assume facts not in evidence. After all, that's why I called it "Speculation Thread," not "Pretty Fairly Likely Outcome Thread."

As to this OP, I think it'll be 50% of your options 1, 2, and 3, with serious people leaning towards 1 and 3 while Michael Moore and the people who think the moon landings were a hoax and believe that "Hunt the Boeing" site will opt for Option 2. However, 50% will choose an option you didn't even mention:

Option 4: The Big Lie, War-Opposition-Version - People will simply ignore that WMD were ever an issue, will deny that they ever denied their existence, and in fact will ignore their current existence in favour of other, unrelated arguments. When the WMDs come up, they'll simply change the subject.

Over time, the more virulent partisans,conspiracy theorists and campus communists will graduate to a new option, the most bizarre option of them all, Option 5:

Option 5: Apologism - They'll just argue Saddam Hussein was a good guy after all. Amazing as this may sound, I absolutely, 100% guarantee that in 15 years, millions of Americans will believe this. Millions. They'll say that, sure, he was a little rough around the edges, but he built up Iraq until the nasty Americans blew it up in 1991 and starved 500,000 children (an urban myth that is now accepted as fact - in fact, the number is now being magnified to 1 million in some sources) and he was really a hero for the poor oppressed Muslims. The fact that he was a brutal, secular fascist won't slow down the campus leftists at all. If you don't believe me, look how many people are big fans of Fidel Castro, Lenin, and, to throw in a right-wing favourite, Pinochet.

[X~Slayer(ALE)]

What if the Elite Republican Guard, upon seeing the First Marine Expidition within Baghdad city limits fires a missile that contains VX or Serin and it only kills Iraqi Civilians (by the hundreds)? Whose fault is that gonna be?

[Jackmannii]

Originally posted by xenophon41
Jackmannii, I understand the reason for this thread, but I have to wonder who you're talking about in the subject line? According to your footnote, you yourself believe the war is a mistake; wouldn't that make you a "war opponent"? And I'm sure you know how you'll respond when/if WMD's are found. I suspect it won't be one of the three options outlined, but rather something along the lines of Cyber Pundit's last sentence.
About right.

Having various warring factions getting access to such weapons following the breakup of the current regime will quite likely be a worse nightmare than having a tyrant like Saddam in charge of the nasties. Not to mention all those anti-U.S. recruits who'll be willing to deploy them as a result of the war.

I was getting tired of the "Two weeks and no proof of WMDs yet! See, Bush made it all up!" threads. I have not leaped on any premature bandwagons of certain prowar posters (i.e. the "Look, WMDs!!!" threads). But the triumphant "Look Ma, no WMDs" threads are just a tad premature.

I don't think thoughtful opposition to the war will necessarily undergo a major revision when WMDs are found*. I'm thinking of the shrill anti-American/anti-Bush component of the antiwar effort which'll make every effort to explain away a major rationale for the war. One or more of the above excuses will come into play.

I will withhold embarassed apologies for having allowed december to beat me by SEVEN minutes, at least until the Hungarian judge has made his ruling.



*assuming, of course, that a Baghdad basement full of dirty bombs with maps of N.Y., Chicago and San Francisco, instructions to operatives and confessions by the Iraqi terror masters involved don't come to light. I don't think this is terribly likely, though.

[errata]

There's nothing to explain, since most war opponents acknowledged the strong possibility of their existence.

For most war opponents WMD was not a casus belli anyway.

OTOH, the aministration and the US is going to be in a big heap of crap if they don't find any.

[rjung]

Wake me up when the Bush Administration finds the UN resolution authorizing the United States to use military action as a result of resolution of 1441. Until then, all this talk about anti-war protesters "changing their tune" is a straw man from the pro-war folks.

[Malthus]

The results in this thread simply go to show what I have been arguing all along - finding WMDs or not finding WMDs will not make any difference. Generally, those opposed to the war will still be opposed if they are found; those in favour will still be in favour if they are *not* found.

And, quite frankly, this is how it ought to be.

An analogy for one aspect of this war is that of a policeman conducting a violent, warrantless search of a suspect in which the suspect is killed making a suspicious move. Those in favour of this proceeding will argue that the suspect was dangerous and the Judge so corrupted with self-interest and irrelevant motivations that obtaining a warrant was impossible, and so that the search was necessary, because the suspect was not co-operating and behaving in a dangerous manner. Those against will deny this, saying that the proper legal methods ought to have been employed, that the search was in effect illegal and improper and amounts to an abuse of power.

Logically, the finding of WMDs cannot retroactively render an improper search proper; the not-finding of WMDs cannot retroactively prove the search improper, if it was proper to begin with.

[Maximum C]

Alot of you are missing the point. It isn't that finding WMD would be irrelevant- I think it's highly relevant- the problem is that unless Bush finds a nuclear missle on an ICBM aimed at New York, I dont think it's ENOUGH to have justified what we have done.

I maintain that the decision to invade should have been made on utilitarian grounds, balancing the benefits and the consequences. I'm not gonna blather about them here, we all know what they are. But it seems to me that a person who plans on having kids would favor the course of action which is safer and more utility-maximizing over the LONG term; the path of international pressure without outright invasion.

Bush has made a horrendous mistake that the US will be paying for for generations. I wish us all the best of luck in dealing with them.

-C

[Jackmannii]

In response to RickJay: Thanks for your clarification. After a couple of weeks of no hard proof, the level of skepticism displayed in your OP (complete with Orwell reference) had me wondering.

The I-never-claimed-there-weren't-WMDs-stop-looking-in-that-memory-hole option makes an interesting addition to the list. I'd like to think #5 never sees the light of day outside of Iraq.

[Jackmannii]

Originally posted by december
I beat you by 7 minutes (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=174744). In the interests of consolidating the two threads
You Republicans are always in favor of mergers. :D
Thanks regardless.I will repeat my speculation here:
-- Apologize, and give Bush and Blair credit for doing the right thing, even in the face of their opposition.
-- Allege that the WMD could have been eliminated without military action.
-- Deny that the WMD finds are genuine.
-- Deny that the WMD finds are significant.
-- Explain that we knew about the WMD all the time, so finding them is old news.
-- Change the subject; explain that Bush is an evil fascist for some other reason.
Of course, all of the responses you mention are likely to one degree or another except for the first, which is whoppingly premature even if the war ends soon with minimal additional casualties, WMDs are found and Saddam's head is paraded on a pole. The long-term fallout* is liable to be quite bad.




*I hope to hell this does not become literally true.

[Beagle]

I maintain that the decision to invade should have been made on utilitarian grounds, balancing the benefits and the consequences. Sure, granted. But, I'll take someone (here GWB) doing the right thing for the wrong reasons, if he can pull it off. I've given up waiting for the perfect selfless act.

As I said some time ago, Bush will be judged by US conduct in the war, victory, and the peace afterward. It's too early to start filling in the report card. Well, that's not totally true--friendly fire procedures: C-. Comments: still needs work.

I think it's possible chemical weapons might still be used, possibly soon given the proximity of US troops to Baghdad proper.* I'd hesitate to think how the evidence thing is going to turn out. It could be that there is so much evidence that nobody could ever doubt it. There might be huge stockpiles and reams of testimony from Iraqi sources with first hand knowledge of the stockpiles. Or, it could be as others have suggested that Saddam either shipped them all to neighboring nations or actually does not have them. I'm in no position--nor is just about anyone except the regime, those with intelligence sources, or coalition forces--to judge the ultimate issue.

I do think there will be a preliminary answer within a couple weeks, probably less.

*As I write this sources are reporting coalition forces in control of one of the airports in/near Baghdad.

[j.c.]

We all know people disagreed with this war. Two things are important now: rebuilding Iraq properly, and holding the US accountable for any crimes it committed or treaties it violated.erislover - how dare you hop in a war thread and talk about the future!

[elucidator]

It looks to me like the Admin might be softening us up for the possibility that they don't exist. Note the prevailing emphasis on "freeing Iraq" as the focus of our mission. Yet, when the march to war began, lo, those many months ago, it was sold to us on the basis of self-defense, with a major emphasis on the threat of Saddam's alleged nukes, coupled with the alleged conspiracy between Saddam and bin Laden. Now, of course, we know that the first is a total crock of shit and the second remains nothing more than speculation. Our "intelligence" as regards Saddam's capabilities and intentions have been shown to be nothing more than rumors, forgeries, and self-serving fabrications.

Are we seriously going to accept this as a basis for war?

Kinda looks to me that Fearless Misleader is hoping that the noise and razz-ma-tazz of his Victory Celebration will drown out the suspicious inquiries of persons like myself. I deeply regret that he is probably right.

Time and again, the "self-defense" rationale of this war has been shown to be baseless. Time and again, the "hawks" simply changed the subject. No matter how eloquent and closely reasoned the argument, it can be drowned out by one baboon beating a drum.

At least we made Saddam pay for Pearl Harbor.

[London_Calling]

< Paging Scott Ritter ... paging Mr Ritter >

[newcrasher]

"This stuff? Ah, uh , cleaning solution...gets your whites WHITE!"

[Jackmannii]

Originally posted by elucidator
No matter how eloquent and closely reasoned the argument, it can be drowned out by one baboon beating a drum.
As long as you're taking requests, how about a rendition of The Washington Post March? :D

[Blalron]

It doesn't even matter to me if they find WMDs, the original allegations were based on such weak evidence that the war was unlawful in the first place. It won't retroactively justify the war.

[Mandelstam]

As to OP: what Emilio, Duke, and AZ said.

RickJay:

"Option 5: Apologism[/B] - They'll just argue Saddam Hussein was a good guy after all. Amazing as this may sound, I absolutely, 100% guarantee that in 15 years, millions of Americans will believe this... The fact that he was a brutal, secular fascist won't slow down the campus leftists at all. If you don't believe me, look how many people are big fans of Fidel Castro, Lenin, and, to throw in a right-wing favourite, Pinochet." (my emphasis)

:rolleyes:

Speaking as a campus leftist, I think this is pretty ridiculous.

Since by some accounts the majority of Americans now believe that Saddam was tied to 9/11 I won't make any predictions about what "millions" of Americans will one day believe. But the idea that any substantial portion of the academic left will embrace military dictator Saddam as a "good guy" is--to be frank--one of the silliest things I've read on these boards in recent weeks.

And as to your supposed evidence for this lame assertion, pardon me while I recover from a laughing fit. Find me a single leftie anywhere who is a "big fan" of Pinochet and I'll show you someone in serious need of medication.

Yeah, I guess you might find a committed socialist on some campus willing to say that Fidel is not all bad, but "big fan"? I don't think so.

As for Lenin: comparing Lenin to Saddam Hussein is beneath you. (Or so I would have thought prior to reading this drivel.)

Honest, Rick, I thought you prided yourself on actually knowing what you were talking about.

[Milum]

"There's nothing to explain, since most war opponents acknowledged the strong possibility of their (WMD) existence.
For most war opponents WMD was not a casus belli anyway."

Oh my. What, I wonder, would get get the singing, marching, sign-toteing "war opponents" off our safe streets and onto the battlefield where fury at injustice can be rightly directed.
Let's see...No, mass murder by gassing didn't do it. How about widespread torture? Naw...Wait a minute! I got it! The Snail Darter! Yes thats it... The widespread destruction of the habitiat of the Snail Darter!

"...the administration and the US is going to be in a big heap of crap if they don't find any."

And who, if I may ask, is to provide a big enought pile to put US in?

[Desmostylus]

Do you ever have anything intelligent to add to a debate, Milum?

[OliverH]

Originally posted by Jackmannii


1) The weapons in question are not really WMD. Such-and-such a missile, while maybe technically illegal for Iraq to have, is not really a WMD. Weaponry X is really for self-defense, and there's no proof that Saddam would have used it on other nations. Poison gas? Crowd control. Bacteriologic warfare stocks? Vaccine research.


Sorry, but I think you're really just twisting around the arguments made by people defending providing Saddam with anthrax. We have a very accurate idea of what Saddam could have if he has anything, and we are very clear about what it can do. The fact that a lot of apologists don't know how vaccines are made doesn't suggest the vaccine argument would be used as an excuse for Saddam.

What strikes me, though, is how many people continue to expect huge stocks of stuff there while having no idea what the acronyms MALDI, PCR, HPLC or GC-MS stand for....

[Mangetout]

When Iraqi WMD are found, how will war opponents explain them away? Assume the conclusion?

Would it not have been slightly more open-minded to ask
If Iraqi WMD are found, will war opponents try to explain them away?

[MSU 1978]

I, for one, will have no reason to explain anything. If Iraq has these weapons, as does China and North Korea, then the pro-war faction needs to explain why Iraq poses a threat that these other two do not. The pro-war faction will have to explain why the war had to start in 2003, when we had inspectors on the ground looking for these weapons and carte blanche to fly spy planes overhead within Iraq. The truth is, this war was never about weapons, it was about regime change. As Senator Kerry rightfully put it, the US is in need of regime change.

[glee]

Originally posted by Milum
"There's nothing to explain, since most war opponents acknowledged the strong possibility of their (WMD) existence.
[b]For most war opponents WMD was not a casus belli anyway."

Oh my. What, I wonder, would get get the singing, marching, sign-toteing "war opponents" off our safe streets and onto the battlefield where fury at injustice can be rightly directed.
Let's see...No, mass murder by gassing didn't do it. How about widespread torture? Naw...Wait a minute! I got it! The Snail Darter! Yes thats it... The widespread destruction of the habitiat of the Snail Darter!


Ah, so you think this war is about invading to get rid of a torturing dictator who has chemical and biological weapons.

Perhaps you could cite the Republican election commitment (it'll date back over a decade to when Sadam last used these ghastly weapons) to free Iraq.
Take all the time you want.

While engaged in that search, see if you can find who installed Sadam in the first place, who sold him the weapons and what they expected him to do with them.
(If your answers are 'the US', 'Donald Rumsfeld' and 'to gas Iranian troops because the US was scared Iran would dominate the region' then you've done very well.)

Originally posted by Milum
"...the administration and the US is going to be in a big heap of crap if they don't find any."

And who, if I may ask, is to provide a big enought pile to put US in?

Ah, you're a Republican!
Of course some terrorist groups (and Governments) will interpret the above as:
"The US can do anything it likes, including invading other countries and there isn't a damned thing anyone can do about it. F*ck you all."

Have you considered a career in diplomacy or counter-terrorism?
No, I didn't think so.

[Jackmannii]

Yup, I said at the outset that I thought evidence would be found -and suggested that some people would find a need to minimize or deny it in varyingly ridiculous fashion. We'll just have to see what happens (we are all speculating here).

As for those who say discovery of WMDs in Iraq wouldn't change the underpinnings of their opposition to the war - I'm with you there. But that was not the point of this thread.

Just heard on the radio about coalition forces finding boxes containing "white powder" and vials holding a mysterious liquid in an Iraqi stronghold. Coffee creamer? SARS stock? Laundry detergent? Saddam's secret Viagra stash? Botulism toxin? Lime for dissolving the bodies of dissidents? Unfounded rumor #3? Who knows?

[Desmostylus]

Originally posted by glee
Have you considered a career in diplomacy or counter-terrorism?
No, I didn't think so. I think you're completely wrong, there, glee. Many of the most senior people currently involved in diplomacy and counter-terrorism seem to think exactly like that. You even named one of them.

[Stratocaster]

Originally posted by Jackmannii
Just heard on the radio about coalition forces finding boxes containing "white powder" and vials holding a mysterious liquid in an Iraqi stronghold. Coffee creamer? SARS stock? Laundry detergent? Saddam's secret Viagra stash? Botulism toxin? Lime for dissolving the bodies of dissidents? Unfounded rumor #3? Who knows? According to MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.com/news/895392.asp?0cv=CB10), they have not confirmed chemical agents, but it sure doesn't look too innocent.

[Stratocaster]

This interesting tidbit from CNN: (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/04/sprj.irq.war.main/index.html)Brooks said reports of the discovery of boxes of unidentified powder, liquid and other materials at an industrial site near Baghdad was "an item of interest." A military officer told The Associated Press that the site is the Latifiya facility, inspected by U.N. weapons inspectors many times as a possible chemical, biological and nuclear weapons site.I guess Blix's crack team must have somehow missed this.

[Desmostylus]

No, the vials of white powder story probably won't hold up. There was a similar one a few days ago, and it turned out that the vials were for testing for the presence of chemical weapons.

It's pretty silly anyway. What's a soldier supposed to do with a vial full of poison? Walk up to the enemy and say "Sniff this?"

[Ryan_Liam]

Even if we do find some, there's always gonna be somebody who is always unsure of it..<rolleyes>

[Stratocaster]

From MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.com/news/895185.asp?0cv=CA01):MSNBC.com tests reveal evidence of the deadly toxins ricin and botulinum at a laboratory in a remote mountain region of northern Iraq allegedly used as a terrorist training camp by Islamic militants with ties to the al-Qaida terrorist network. The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency is conducting its own tests at the same area, but has not yet released the results, according to officials in northern Iraq.

[RTFirefly]

Originally posted by ElJeffe
Sr. Lizardo is correct. War opponents will say it doesn't matter that WMDs were found, that doesn't justify going against the UN. And that's the most convenient argument, because it doesn't require any concessions at all. Saddam had 10,000 tons of VX? Who cares? Shoulda gone through the UN. Enough small pox to infect the entire eastern seaboard? Shoulda gone through the UN. Since I'm dubious about the claimed ease of using such things as weapons of mass destruction, I've argued all along that our foreign policy should focus our power and influence on limiting the one proven weapon of mass destruction - nukes. I'm not keen on Saddam having bio/chem weapons. (I've assumed all along that he has bio/chem weapons; after all, we've got the receipts. He might've gotten rid of them since, but it's not the way to bet.) But does his possession of same justify an invasion of a sovereign nation? Whether it does or not, we've certainly lowered the bar for other nations that want to invade a neighbor.
50 nukes, each painted with "Destination: US"? Can we say "UN", boys and girls? That would be a different story. But even the Bushies haven't claimed in quite some time that we're going to find a viable nuclear-weapons program over there.

[december]

Originally posted by RTFirefly
we've certainly lowered the bar for other nations that want to invade a neighbor. Maybe we've raised the bar by punishing Saddam who invaded both Kuwait and Iran. Don't you think the next aggressive dictator will think twice before invading its neighbor?

[Huerta88]

Originally posted by Bob Cos
From MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.com/news/895185.asp?0cv=CA01): [/B]

Thank God MSNBC.com is on the scene for the forensic analysis. Maybe they can get the guys from CSI Miami to check out some of the other sites.

It's hard to imagine the results of the WMD search won't be equivocal. Some facility or chemical precursor or remnant of old weapons stock or "banned" missile that could have been adapted for X, or materials that should have been destroyed back in 19xx, will turn up (I don't think the U.S. would plant it). The Iraqis will say it was an oversight, others will think the Iraqis/SH were in fact engaging in sullen foot dragging and withholding full compliance with a "requirement" that they felt violated their sovereignty, and compliance with which they never agreed to, except under the undue duress of the last Gulf War defeat, and the hawks will say this proves there was noncompliance all along.

If something is indeed discovered stashed away -- let's even assume an extensive and functional and deliverable arsenal of deadly WMD -- but was not used by SH during the course of a full-scale invasion for regime change, the question is whether this poses a problem for the hawks. I think it might if people seriously analyzed the rationale that brought the war about, which was heavy on "(a) WMD exist in Iraq and (b) they are an imminent threat to the U.S. because SH is a madman who may soon use them on us such that other containment options short of war are inadequate." I doubt most Americans would think going to war and evicting a sovereign government solely on the basis of even a clear procedural violation of a UN mandate was a foregone conclusion, the way they would if they thought that weapons not only existed but were aimed at the U.S. Heck, a lot of Americans don't think much of the UN or other international bodies "legislating" to begin with, and routinely ignore any pronouncement such bodies may make attempting to impose limits on U.S. policy.

So if SH has WMD but doesn't use them when the Americans are 10 miles from downtown Baghdad, in the course of demolishing his regime and going after his life, this sort of detracts from the idea that he would have somehow been motivated to deliver (or capable of doing so) a WMD strike on Manhattan or Pittsburgh or whatever anytime soon, absent the war. (This isn't to say that such weapons, if they do exist, won't be deployed in coming days -- which in addition to the horrible consequences on the poor kids facing such an attack, would doubtless lead to grotesque posturing by both sides; the hawks would be appalled yet you wonder if they wouldn't have a bit of secret vindication/satisfaction; the doves would shout that none of this would ever have happened if the regime hadn't been pushed to the brink. Let's hope it doesn't come to this).

As a practical matter, though, I think the ambiguity that will likely result when something suspicious (or downright incrimnating) is found somewhere will allow each side to continue arguing their points ("We found them just in the nick of time before he launched them on Wichita!" vs. "They've been sitting there for ten years, including during this invasion, and would have sat there ten more.").

[RickJay]

Originally posted by Mandelstam
And as to your supposed evidence for this lame assertion, pardon me while I recover from a laughing fit. Find me a single leftie anywhere who is a "big fan" of Pinochet and I'll show you someone in serious need of medication.
Umm... is this a joke? Did I not say in my post TO THROW IN A RIGHT-WING FAVOURITE... ... you didn't get the fact that I was pointing out that ring-wing folk apologize for their dictators, too? Read that again.

RIGHT-WING FAVOURITE

Catch it that time?

Christ, Mandlestam. I don't think my posts are that confusing, and nobody else seems to misunderstand them this badly, but this must be the fourth time you've replied to one of mine and come out with an impression of it that sounds as if either I was writing in Sanskrit or you accidentally posted a reply to a different thread. I thought it was pretty clear I was asserting that Pinochet has his apologists on the right side, not the left.

No, you won't get any campus lefties praising Pinochet. But you DO get lots of Young Conservatives praising Pinochet. Old ones, too. Milton Friedman has famously supported Pinochet, and has gone to far as to lament the notion of political freedom interfering with economic freedom (the nerve of those Chileans, huh?) Or, in another case, there was a thread on the SDMB just last week talking about how Ronald Reagan, while not precisely SUPPORTING apartheid, certainly seemed to be a big fan of its government - one of the most hideous, evil, criminal states of recent memory. South Africa had many conservative supporters at least at the lower levels of apologism.

The capacity for people to forgive dictators who support their political ends is breathtaking. Of course, there's varying levels of apologism:

- Ignoring Their Misdeeds And Just Complaining About Opposing Dictators
- Saying "Well, He's Worse Than The Alternative"
- Saying It's All the USA/Communists'/Muslims/Israel's Fault, As The Case May Be
- Minimizing Their Sins
- Cheering Them On

Yeah, I guess you might find a committed socialist on some campus willing to say that Fidel is not all bad, but "big fan"? I don't think so.
Then no offense, but I don't believe you know what you're talking about. Castro has many ARDENT supporters in the U.S. and, indeed, here in Canada. Around the world, actually - he's a very popular leader. Unless you live in Miami, I can't imagine how you wouldn't notice this. The man is loved by millions. Log onto Michael Moore's message board, post a thread called "Fidel Castro is a great leader," and watch how many messages of support you get. He has MILLIONS of apologists. All dictators do. Are they on the extreme ends of the political spectrum? Of course they are; your average leftist/rightist isn't that extreme. But the super-partisans are around:

http://www.geocities.com/mecha_csuf/fidelcastro.html

And Saddam Hussein will have his fans in time, and if you don't believe me, let's bet money on it. Among the colossal screwups of diplomacy the Bush administration is committing, setting Hussein up to be a hero of anti-Americanism will be one of the more irritating in years to come.

As for Lenin: comparing Lenin to Saddam Hussein is beneath you. (Or so I would have thought prior to reading this drivel.)
How so? Lenin was a murderous dictator. So is Hussein. Are they different? Certainly... VERY different. But they do bear one key similarity, which was the point of comparison.

[glee]

Originally posted by Desmostylus
I think you're completely wrong, there, glee. Many of the most senior people currently involved in diplomacy and counter-terrorism seem to think exactly like that. You even named one of them.

At first I thought this was witty.

Then I wondered why you didn't put a :rolleyes: .

Then it struck me that you are making a valid, yet frightening, point.

I can imagine Bush nodding as his crack team told him about how the Iraqis will throw garlands of flowers onto the tanks of the US freedom fighters.
And how the US electorate will think how this war is about Osama Bin Laden (sort of).

[RTFirefly]

Originally posted by december
Maybe we've raised the bar by punishing Saddam who invaded both Kuwait and Iran. Don't you think the next aggressive dictator will think twice before invading its neighbor? I thought we'd already 'punished' Saddam for invading Kuwait by, first, bombing the living tar out of his country, then kicking his sorry ass out of Kuwait and destroying much of his army.

As for Iran, it's not only a little late for punishing him for that (how far back are we going to go?), but it's also kinda stupid, because weren't we on his side in that one? Maybe when we're done punishing him, we should have someone else punish us.

[MP&HG]
A spanking! A spanking!
[/MP&HG]

[AZCowboy]

Pardon me for interrupting this thread to dispel a hijack.

First, regarding the "white powder", which was found south of Baghdad in Latifiya:

US finds 'suspect vials' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2917531.stm)
But a senior US official familiar with initial testing said the white powder found at Latifiya was believed to be explosives, AP reported.
...
UN inspectors have visited the plant at least a dozen times, including as recently as 18 February.

And then to further confuse the issue, the reference to ricin and botulinum traces were found at the Ansar al-Islam site in northern Iraq, in the Kurdish controlled portion of Iraq, and doesn't represent a connection to Saddam Hussein.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled debate...

[Mandelstam]

RickJay, okay so basically what you're saying is this:

1. Your reference to Pinochet, which purported to offer proof for the assertion that "campus leftists" will one day admire Saddam Hussein, was nothing but a non-sequitur, completley irrelevant to campus leftists since the reference had nothing to do them.

2. You have no proof that any campus leftist is a "big fan" of Fidel Castro (unless perhaps you assume that the Michael Moore website is frequented by academics).

3. You know absolutely nothing about Lenin, except perhaps what you've read on websites not much better than the kind you profess to disdain. I infer the latter, because if you did know anything about Lenin, you'd know that reducing him to a "murderous dictator" in order to compare him Saddam Hussein is either proof of ignorance, or of willful stupidity. (I lean towards the former in your case on the basis of having thought better of you in the past.)

In other words, Rick, don't take on an entire class of people--many of whom are a hell of a lot better educated than you are--and attribute loony beliefs to them. It makes you look churlish and, quite frankly, dumb.

Yes, on campuses one finds one's share of nutters, but these are no more likely to be leftists than not. No, I do not agree with all "campus leftists," as we are not a monolithic group espousing a monolithic creed. But I do know enough about the category to know that your allegations are baseless. That is, I doubt very much you will find any significant number of "campus leftists" professing their admiration for Saddam, either now in the future.

[glee]

Originally posted by december
Maybe we've raised the bar by punishing Saddam who invaded both Kuwait and Iran. Don't you think the next aggressive dictator will think twice before invading its neighbor?

As other posters have remarked, the US supported Saddam fighting Iran. In fact a chap called Rumsfeld sold him the chemical weapons he used on the Iranians. So that's all right by you, is it?

And your 'principle' didn't stop Bush invading Iraq, did it? :confused:

And how would you apply the effects of your incredible scheme for world peace to the Middle East?

[RickJay]

Originally posted by Mandelstam
RickJay, okay so basically what you're saying is this:
You're way beyond the SDMB's rules with respect to what belongs in this forum, and way off-topic, so my response has to go in the Pit. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=175041)

[december]

Originally posted by glee
In fact a chap called Rumsfeld sold him the chemical weapons he used on the Iranians.I don't believe this is true. Got a cite? So that's all right by you, is it?Seem irrelevant to the question at hand, doesn't it?And your 'principle' didn't stop Bush invading Iraq, did it? :confused: Do you include Bush as an "aggressive dictator invading his neighbor"?And how would you apply the effects of your incredible scheme for world peace to the Middle East? Bringing peace to the Middle East a tough challenge.

[rjung]

Originally posted by december
I don't believe this is true. Got a cite?
Oooh, oooh! Pick me, pick me!

Records Show US Sent Biological Weapons Germs to Iraq
by Matt Kelley, Associated Press

WASHINGTON –– Iraq's bioweapons program that President Bush wants to eradicate got its start with help from Uncle Sam two decades ago, according to government records getting new scrutiny in light of the discussion of war against Iraq.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention sent samples directly to several Iraqi sites that U.N. weapons inspectors determined were part of Saddam Hussein's biological weapons program, CDC and congressional records from the early 1990s show. Iraq had ordered the samples, claiming it needed them for legitimate medical research.

The CDC and a biological sample company, the American Type Culture Collection, sent strains of all the germs Iraq used to make weapons, including anthrax, the bacteria that make botulinum toxin and the germs that cause gas gangrene, the records show. Iraq also got samples of other deadly pathogens, including the West Nile virus.

The transfers came in the 1980s, when the United States supported Iraq in its war against Iran.
Link. (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1001-06.htm)

How Did Iraq Get Its Weapons? We Sold Them
by Neil Mackay and Felicity Arbuthnot, Sunday Herald (Scotland)

THE US and Britain sold Saddam Hussein the technology and materials Iraq needed to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction.

Reports by the US Senate's committee on banking, housing and urban affairs -- which oversees American exports policy -- reveal that the US, under the successive administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr, sold materials including anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs and botulism to Iraq right up until March 1992, as well as germs similar to tuberculosis and pneumonia. Other bacteria sold included brucella melitensis, which damages major organs, and clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene.

Classified US Defense Department documents also seen by the Sunday Herald show that Britain sold Iraq the drug pralidoxine, an antidote to nerve gas, in March 1992, after the end of the Gulf war. Pralidoxine can be reverse engineered to create nerve gas.

The Senate committee's reports on 'US Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual-Use Exports to Iraq', undertaken in 1992 in the wake of the Gulf war, give the date and destination of all US exports. The reports show, for example, that on May 2, 1986, two batches of bacillus anthracis -- the micro-organism that causes anthrax -- were shipped to the Iraqi Ministry of Higher Education, along with two batches of the bacterium clostridium botulinum, the agent that causes deadly botulism poisoning.

One batch each of salmonella and E coli were shipped to the Iraqi State Company for Drug Industries on August 31, 1987. Other shipments went from the US to the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission on July 11, 1988; the Department of Biology at the University of Basrah in November 1989; the Department of Microbiology at Baghdad University in June 1985; the Ministry of Health in April 1985 and Officers' City, a military complex in Baghdad, in March and April 1986.

The shipments to Iraq went on even after Saddam Hussein ordered the gassing of the Kurdish town of Halabja, in which at least 5000 men, women and children died. The atrocity, which shocked the world, took place in March 1988, but a month later the components and materials of weapons of mass destruction were continuing to arrive in Baghdad from the US.

Link. (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0908-08.htm)

[Milossarian]

I wouldn't expect the discovery of chemical, biological or radiological weapons to sway the entrenched positions of certain war opponents here, for all the reasons that have been listed.

However, it will certainly make France, Germany and Russia's leaders look stupid. Because among the things they asserted prior to the war was that the U.N. weapons inspections were working, and the number of inspectors only needed to be increased.

As Saddam Hussein has denied he has any chemical, biological or radiological weapons, if any are discovered, he will have been proven to have been thwarting U.N. weapons inspectors. It will be proof that the inspection program was ineffective.

"Going through the U.N." and "using diplomacy" (which has essentially become Bush- and war-opponent doublespeak for "the U.S. capitulating to the French, German and Russian position") will have been proven to have been folly. The position we were supposed to capitulate to was that inspections were working, and that inspectors and inspections alone would bring about Iraq's compliance with U.N. Security Council Resolutions 678, 687 and 1441, if they were only done a little differently.
Cite (www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/24/sprj.irq.memo/)

Discovery of any chemical, biological and radiological weapons will expose that for the rubbish that it is/was.

Also the French, Germans and Russians maintain Bush and Blair had no justification for this war. Bush and Blair maintained the war was necessary because A) evidence exists that Iraq has continued to build and possess WMD, and B) Iraq did not adequately answer vital questions about its unaccounted for WMD.

No matter how some who dislike Bush may want to slice it, the discovery of any chemical, biological or radiological weapons in Iraq will prove the U.S. and U.K.'s concerns were well-justified.

Some I suspect will immediately reach for this quibble, "all along we said Bush and Blair didn't have conclusive evidence of WMD, that justified going to war. (In fact, IIRC, a war opponent has already used that one in this thread.)

Somehow trying to deflect the focus off the fact that it was fear that Saddam had WMD that motivated the war, and he did indeed have WMD.

Looney tunes? You bet. Watch it happen, nonetheless.

[Giraffe]

Originally posted by RickJay
They'll say that, sure, he was a little rough around the edges, but he built up Iraq until the nasty Americans blew it up in 1991 and starved 500,000 children (an urban myth that is now accepted as fact - in fact, the number is now being magnified to 1 million in some sources)Someone should tell UNICEF and Tony Blair to stop spreading urban legends.
Originally stated by Tony Blair, in his March 25, 2003 press conference (http://www.britainusa.com/iraq/xq/asp/SarticleType.1/Article_ID.3424/qx/articles_show.htm) with George Bush
On the latest estimates, up to 400,000 children under the age of 5 in the center and south of Iraq have died over the last 5 years through malnutrition and disease.Whether or not you blame the deaths from the sanctions entirely on Saddam, entirely on the U.S., or on both of them is of course a matter of debate (I favor the third option, myself), but the large numbers of dead Iraqi children as a direct result of the sanctions is well-documented fact, not urban myth.

[Milossarian]

P.S. To whoever back there threw out the "why aren't we treating North Korea the same way?" and the "why weren't we concerned about Iraq's WMD 10 years ago?" straw men:

how many times does the same thing have to be slapped upside your heads, until you get it?

Regarding the North Korea strawman -
Diplomacy hasn't even come close to being exhausted when it comes to North Korea. In the case of Iraq, it quite clearly has. No matter where you may stand on the Iraq war, I can't imagine your argument would be that if we just make this concession, or this sanction against, or these negotiating sessions, Saddam Hussein will then comply with 678, 687 and 1441.

How many Security Council resolutions are there about North Korea's WMD and required disarmament? How many are there about Iraq?

Rest assured, if or when diplomatic avenues are exhausted with Kim Jong-Il, the U.S. will take military action rather than have a kook with nuclear ballistic missles in Southeast Asia, pointed at the U.S. among others. That's if China, Japan or South Korea doesn't beat us to it.

Regarding the "why weren't we concerned about Iraq before?" strawman -
Sept. 11, 2001, demonstrably changed U.S. policy on potential large-scale threats, whether Iraq was directly involved in that attack or not. Anyone who doesn't "get that" yet is doing so purposefully.

Cite from two months after 9/11 (www.nukewatch.org/media/more_media/11-00-01/11-27-01/Iraqs-Weapons-Could-Make-It-a-Target-Bush-Says.html)
Cite providing evidence that those in the Bush administration who supported ousting Saddam were largely ignored until after 9/11 (www.time.com/time/covers/1101030331/wroad.html)
(A long but interesting read.)

[Milum]

Uh...no offense Milossarian, but are you me?

If you are or if you ain't , I think you are very smart.

[Dostromin]

I think it is funny how you say "when" the weapons are found, not it.
Really it should be if, as we do not know if they have the weapons.

Damn right wingers trying (in vain) to disprove the left.
And vice versa.

[elucidator]

Just wait till they find those intercontinental drones armed with nuclear anthrax!

[rjung]

Originally posted by Milossarian
I wouldn't expect the discovery of chemical, biological or radiological weapons to sway the entrenched positions of certain war opponents here, for all the reasons that have been listed.

However, it will certainly make France, Germany and Russia's leaders look stupid. Because among the things they asserted prior to the war was that the U.N. weapons inspections were working, and the number of inspectors only needed to be increased.

As Saddam Hussein has denied he has any chemical, biological or radiological weapons, if any are discovered, he will have been proven to have been thwarting U.N. weapons inspectors.
Sorry, buddy, but your logic doesn't scan.

Let's say that next week, American forces raid a steel mill northeast of Baghdad and find the Mother Load, enough Anthrax and VX and what-have-you to fill several semi tractor-trailers. While the conservative right give themselves a vigorous masturbation session, someone pokes through the records and finds that this facility was never inspected by anyone in Hans Blix's group, and that they never received any tips from U.S. intelligence agencies that stuff was being hidden there.

How does this (imaginary) discovery "prove" that the inspections failed? Unless you've got a time machine and can peer across the multiverse into the myriad alternate realities out there, there's no way to show that if the war was averted and inspections had continued, that Blix and his group wouldn't have found the stuff eventually anyway. Blix certainly never said his inspections were finished and Iraq had a clean bill of health; he, like the majority of the international community, wanted more time to continue looking, so he could find whatever Saddam's got hidden in Iraq.

I don't know what Hans Blix could have found if he had been given more time and personnel like he wanted, and neither do you. To use an American discovery of WMD as "proof" that the inspections failed is nonsense.

[glee]

Originally posted by glee
In fact a chap called Rumsfeld sold him the chemical weapons he used on the Iranians.


Originally posted by december
[I don't believe this is true. Got a cite?


rjung (well done, that man) beat me to it.

You know, December, I've watched in amazement as you post a string of assertions that fit with your political view. Then you have to back off because there is no supporting evidence.
But your reaction here to unwelcome news is instant disbelief.
Are you really telling me that you didn't know about Rumsfeld?
Couldn't you have done some searches?
Like this:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/WO0210/S00198.htm



Originally posted by december
Seem irrelevant to the question at hand, doesn't it?


Well it's true.
Is it all right by you?
Do you still think the US has 'raised the bar'?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by X~Slayer(ALE)
What if the Elite Republican Guard, upon seeing the First Marine Expidition within Baghdad city limits fires a missile that contains VX or Serin and it only kills Iraqi Civilians (by the hundreds)? Whose fault is that gonna be?

According to the DoD info, some US troops have already pased the so called "Red Line." So, how come the Iraqis didn't fire any chemical or biological weapons at them? Why not?

Previously:

- chemical weapons plant? Nada.
- white powder? Nothing significant.

So far, there is still no solid evidence of any NCB weapons.

[OliverH]

Originally posted by Milossarian
I wouldn't expect the discovery of chemical, biological or radiological weapons to sway the entrenched positions of certain war opponents here, for all the reasons that have been listed.

However, it will certainly make France, Germany and Russia's leaders look stupid. Because among the things they asserted prior to the war was that the U.N. weapons inspections were working, and the number of inspectors only needed to be increased.


Why will it make them look stupid? Finding weapons would prove neither that they were wrong, nor that inspections were not working. After all, it would prove in no way that such weapons would not have found had the number of inspectors been increased, and had they been given more time, and, most importantly, had the US stopped flooding them with bogus 'intelligence'.


As Saddam Hussein has denied he has any chemical, biological or radiological weapons, if any are discovered, he will have been proven to have been thwarting U.N. weapons inspectors. It will be proof that the inspection program was ineffective.


It will prove no such thing. You see, finding things takes time.


"Going through the U.N." and "using diplomacy" (which has essentially become Bush- and war-opponent doublespeak for "the U.S. capitulating to the French, German and Russian position") will have been proven to have been folly. The position we were supposed to capitulate to was that inspections were working, and that inspectors and inspections alone would bring about Iraq's compliance with U.N. Security Council Resolutions 678, 687 and 1441, if they were only done a little differently.
Cite (www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/24/sprj.irq.memo/)

Discovery of any chemical, biological and radiological weapons will expose that for the rubbish that it is/was.


Hardly. It will prove in no way that a war was necessary at this point in time.


Also the French, Germans and Russians maintain Bush and Blair had no justification for this war. Bush and Blair maintained the war was necessary because A) evidence exists that Iraq has continued to build and possess WMD, and B) Iraq did not adequately answer vital questions about its unaccounted for WMD.

No matter how some who dislike Bush may want to slice it, the discovery of any chemical, biological or radiological weapons in Iraq will prove the U.S. and U.K.'s concerns were well-justified.


Methinks you have no idea what the French, German or Russian position is. None of them EVER doubted that Iraq MAY have WMDs.



Looney tunes? You bet. Watch it happen, nonetheless.

I would suggest you inform yourself better on what the position of countries whose position you want to discuss actually is.

[Milossarian]

rjung (and OliverH, displaying the same wrong-thinking):
Let's say that next week, American forces raid a steel mill northeast of Baghdad and find the Mother Load, enough Anthrax and VX and what-have-you to fill several semi tractor-trailers. While the conservative right give themselves a vigorous masturbation session, someone pokes through the records and finds that this facility was never inspected by anyone in Hans Blix's group, and that they never received any tips from U.S. intelligence agencies that stuff was being hidden there.

How does this (imaginary) discovery "prove" that the inspections failed?
Because inspectors were there as verifiers of Iraq's active and complete disarmament of itself; not as detectives trying to snoop out WMD. My God, how can you people not understand that yet?

Don't believe me? Ask Hans Blix (www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/5184054.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp):
cooperation, as I have noted, requires more than the opening of doors. In the words of resolution 1441 it requires immediate, unconditional and active efforts by Iraq to resolve existing questions of disarmament either by presenting remaining proscribed items and program for elimination or by presenting convincing evidence that they have been eliminated.
<snip>
Although I can understand that it may not be easy for Iraq in all cases to provide the evidence needed, IT IS NOT THE TASK OF THE INSPECTORS TO FIND IT. Iraq itself must squarely tackle this task and avoid belittling the questions.

[Sam Stone]

Mandelstam said:

You know absolutely nothing about Lenin, except perhaps what you've read on websites not much better than the kind you profess to disdain. I infer the latter, because if you did know anything about Lenin, you'd know that reducing him to a "murderous dictator" in order to compare him Saddam Hussein is either proof of ignorance, or of willful stupidity. (I lean towards the former in your case on the basis of having thought better of you in the past.)


I think it's you that needs a history lesson. Lenin was a brutal tyrant, with execution squads, purges, mass terror tactics, and all the other tricks of a murderous despot.

I know some modern leftists like to portray Lenin as the 'good' Communist, and Stalin as the 'bad' one who wrecked the glorious society Lenin was building, but the fact is both of them we evil men who oppressed their population and killed people by the score. The only reason Lenin didn't rack up the kind of body count Stalin managed was because Lenin had the good sense to die early.

[Zoe]

Hi, Sam! You said:
Lenin was a brutal tyrant, with execution squads, purges, mass terror tactics, and all the other tricks of a murderous despot.


Could you provide a reliable cite for these accusations? I've always preferred Trotsky, but your comments about Lenin surprise me. I don't by any means consider myself well-educated about the Revolution.

Although each peace protester has her or his own thoughts about the war in Iraq, I believe that the following are common misconceptions that Conservatives have about most peace demonstrators and anti-war citizens

1. We do not support Saddam.
2. We do support the troops.
3. We love our country
4. We did not say that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. As pointed out earlier, we said there was no proof when we chose to go to war.
5. We are violent about peace.

This is a recording...

[Sam Stone]

Zoe:

Well, we could let Lenin speak for himself. Here's a snippet of a letter he wrote to Molotov in 1922 (http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/archives/ae2bkhun.html):


Therefore, I come to the indisputable conclusion that we
must precisely now smash the Black Hundreds clergy most
decisively and ruthlessly and put down all resistance with such
brutality that they will not forget it for several decades.


Some background: Due to the disastrous policies of forced collectivization and the crushing of the peasants, there was mass famine in the Soviet Union, and 3-10 million people died under Lenin. The Russian Orthodox Church was wealthy, and Lenin decided to plunder it. The 'Black Hundreds' clergy refused to turn over their wealth. Lenin had them arrested, and many executed (1200-8000 killed, many more sent to the Gulag).

Here are some more details (http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/museum/his1g.htm) about Lenin's reign:


As the economy deteriorated, the Cheka waxed ever fatter. After an July 1918 revolt by SRs, the Cheka turned its guns on fellow socialists, executing 350 captured SR rebels. One month later, the SR Fanya Kaplan nearly succeeded in assassinating Lenin. Her noble effort unfortunately gave the Cheka the excuse to initiate the Red Terror, i.e., mass executions of people based not upon their actions but their class origins and beliefs.
...
Five hundred hostages were shot in reprisal in Petrograd alone by order of Zinoviev, the head of the local soviet. On September 5, the people's commissars officially legalized the red terror..." (European Socialism: A History of Ideas and Movements)

From then on the Cheka's executions never ceased. The exact number murdered is usually estimated at between 100,000 and 500,000, but the chaotic wartime conditions make the accounting especially difficult. But execution was not the Cheka's only tool; it also pioneered the development of the modern slave labor (or "concentration") camp. Inmates were generally frankly treated as government-owned slaves, and used for the most demanding sorts of work - such as digging arctic canals - while receiving pitifully small rations. As Pipes explains, "Soviet concentration camps, as instituted in 1919, were meant to be a place of confinement for all kinds of undesirables, whether sentenced by courts or by administrative organs. Liable to confinement in them were not only individuals but also 'categories of individuals' - that is, entire classes: Dzerzhinskii at one point proposed that special concentration camps be erected for the 'bourgeoisie.' Living in forced isolation, the inmates formed a pool of slave labor on which Soviet administrative and economic institutions could draw at no cost." (The Russian Revolution) The number of people in these camps according to Pipes was about 50,000 prisoners in 1920 and 70,000 in 1923; many of these did not survive the inhuman conditions.
...
But the greatest crime committed by Lenin's regime was the civil war the Soviet government waged against the peasantry, and the famine this war precipitated.
...
Low estimates on the deaths from this famine are about 3 million; high estimates go up to 10 million - which would probably have been much higher if not for foreign relief efforts which Lenin had the good sense to permit. For perspective, the last severe famine in Russia hit in 1891-92, and cost about 400,000 lives.



That civil war was ordered by Lenin - his minions scoured the countryside, executing wealthy 'Kulaks' and instituting terror in the population so they wouldn't rise up. Farmers who knew what they were doing were killed, and their farms given over to party apparatchiks who didn't have a clue. The result was a massive reduction in agricultural output and a resulting famine.

Let's let Lenin speak for himself again. This is a transcript of a letter from the Library of Congress: (http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/SDG/Experimental/soviet.exhibit/ad2kulak.html)


11-8-18

Send to Penza To Comrades Kuraev, Bosh, Minkin and other Penza communists

Comrades! The revolt by the five kulak volost's must be suppressed without mercy. The interest of the entire revolution demands this, because we have now before us our final decisive battle "with the kulaks." We need to set an example.

1. You need to hang (hang without fail, so that the public sees) at least 100 notorious kulaks, the rich, and the bloodsuckers.

2. Publish their names.

3. Take away all of their grain.

4. Execute the hostages - in accordance with yesterday's telegram.

This needs to be accomplished in such a way, that people for hundreds of miles around will see, tremble, know and scream out: let's choke and strangle those blood-sucking kulaks.

Telegraph us acknowledging receipt and execution of this.

Yours, Lenin

P.S. Use your toughest people for this.


This was but one act against the Kulaks. It was repeated across the country.

Lenin is easily one of the most brutal dictators of the 20th century. In terms of body count, he's probably right behind Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot.

[elucidator]

What a fascinating and instructive hijack. Really, I could only be more interested if it were somehow relevent.

[Sam Stone]

And elucidator drives by with another snarky, and totally irrelevant comment. Way to go.

My message was answering a question asked by Zoe, which in turn was related to the discussion between Rickjay and Mandelstam regarding historical revisionism of tyrants by some extremists. This in turn was related to the OP, because the ENTIRE DISCUSSION has been about ways that people will spin information to suit their political point of view.

Looks like the only hijack around here was your darling little message.

[elucidator]

Sure, Sam, whatever.

[OliverH]

Originally posted by Milossarian
rjung (and OliverH, displaying the same wrong-thinking):

Because inspectors were there as verifiers of Iraq's active and complete disarmament of itself; not as detectives trying to snoop out WMD. My God, how can you people not understand that yet? [/b]


I would suggest rather than blindly parroting the Bush administration, you familiarize yourself with the way the UN works. The inspectors have been in Iraq before, in the early 90s finding and destroying WMDs BEFORE Iraq had any time to do anything about them. They are there for whatever task the Security Council assigns them, and if they are there on the first of January 2003 to check compliance that has no implication whatsoever as to whether they are there on February 1st to snoop around. They can do it, and they can do it much better than a bunch of high school dropouts who thinks DNA is a US agency.



Don't believe me? Ask Hans Blix (www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/5184054.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp):

Too bad that it confirms none of your words. It merely states what the task of UNMOVIC was at one specific point in time. It has no implication WHATSOEVER on what the inspectors are capable of doing when authorized to do so. More, Iraq has been doing precisely what Blix asked them to in the excerpt you cited.

Not to mention that ElBaradei has quite a different view of the inspection process than you:


While we are continuing to some extent with this reconnaissance work, our inspections are now well into the investigative phase with particular emphasis on determining what, if anything, has occurred in Iraq over the past four years relevant to the reestablishment of Iraq nuclear capabilities. These investigative inspections focus on areas of concerns identified by other states, facilities identified through satellite images as having been modified or constructed since 1998 and other inspection leads identified independently by the IAEA.

(Jan. 27, 2003)

The IAEA experience in the nuclear verification shows that it is possible, particularly with an intrusive verification system, to assess the presence or absence of a nuclear weapon program in a state, even without the full cooperation of the inspected states.

(Feb. 14, 2003)

[Milossarian]

OliverH-

I think everyone is capable of reading what Hans Blix said, in the quotes I provided. They can also read the text of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441.

But you are free to assail it as "my position" or "a parroting of the Bush position" as you so choose.
It merely states what the task of UNMOVIC was at one specific point in time. It has no implication WHATSOEVER on what the inspectors are capable of doing when authorized to do so.
So, to make sure I understand what you are saying correctly.

All of the U.N. Security Council resolutions to date called for Iraq's complete and verifiable disarmament of themselves, with U.N. observers there to inspect and verify same.

1441 says Iraq must do the aforementioned or face "serious consequences."

Saddam Hussein, as has been his practice for years, plays some process games, but does not actively, completely and verifiably disarm.

Your response to all of the facts I've just listed, judging by the quote from you I've just cited, is that the U.N. should then say, "We've told him to disarm. He didn't. Let's change our approach now, and forget that little bit we unanimously said earlier about 'serious consequences.'"

I believe it is exactly this kind of exasperating thinking that prompted the coalition of the willing to say enough of this nonsense.

[tomndebb]

I believe it is exactly this kind of exasperating thinking that prompted the coalition of the willing to say enough of this nonsense. And I would note that the "Coalition of the Willing" is mostly a group of countries that have been either bribed or coerced into supporting the policies that Bush and Blair had decided upon before the first U.N. inspector had packed the first toothbrush to travel to Iraq.

I'm sure that Iraq had/has WoMD. I'm sure that Hussein was going to try to hide them. However, the pretense for this war was the arbitrary deadline set by Bush without regard to the actual progress made by Blix and company. Nothing in 1441 indicates a timetable--that was imposed by Bush, who actually began the irreversible build-up for war before Blix had even arrived in Iraq.

I hope that Bush and Blair have a realistic plan to rehabilitate Iraq (rather than turning it into a U.S. puppet and inspiring a lot more volunteers for al Qaeda), but I have little hope for that, given their uttely failed attempts at diplomacy prior to this preordained war.

[OliverH]

Originally posted by Milossarian
OliverH-

I think everyone is capable of reading what Hans Blix said, in the quotes I provided. They can also read the text of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441.



They can also read the text of the UN charter.


All of the U.N. Security Council resolutions to date called for Iraq's complete and verifiable disarmament of themselves, with U.N. observers there to inspect and verify same.

1441 says Iraq must do the aforementioned or face "serious consequences."


They say much more than that. They say that the other member nations are to support the inspection process. Instead, the US has a track record of sabotaging it as best as it can.


Saddam Hussein, as has been his practice for years, plays some process games, but does not actively, completely and verifiably disarm.

False. As Blix and ElBaradei confirm, they have changed their behavior to the better considerably.


Your response to all of the facts I've just listed, judging by the quote from you I've just cited, is that the U.N. should then say, "We've told him to disarm. He didn't. Let's change our approach now, and forget that little bit we unanimously said earlier about 'serious consequences.'"

I believe it is exactly this kind of exasperating thinking that prompted the coalition of the willing to say enough of this nonsense.

No, I am saying no such thing. I am saying that it is neither up to you, nor up to any single member to define what 'serious consequences' are. Least of all up to people who have as much respect for UN resolutions as Iraq has it. What I am saying is that you may not think of a certain type of consequences as serious, but that could not be of any less relevance.

Not the least, there is not a shred of evidence that Iraq did, in fact, not disarm, as you claim. The only thing there has been was FORGED evidence by the US. But I take it that forgery is ok when you 'know' you're right.

Instead of justifying the war, you're justifying Iraq. And every dictator in the history. Up to and including the attack on Poland by Nazi Germany, which was also based on having to defend against a threat that was based on forged evidence.

[Abe]

I'm impressed with Milossarian's efforts. Not so much with his reasoning, logic, or evidence, but the way he pops up to make the same general point after it is argued down and discredited is... well, it must be the result of a special effort.

Didn't you present much the same claims you make here in the Tony Blair's Speech to His Parliament (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=170882) thread last month? And weren't most if not all of your points refuted back then? I'm pretty sure they were...

[tagos]

Originally posted by rjung
Oooh, oooh! Pick me, pick me!

good cites but December is just trolling. He knows full well the state of play, from the copious cites in other threads If he doesn't remember or professes not to know then, as usual, he is not qualified to take part in the debate as anything other than an uninformed observer.

[Milossarian]

Not the least, there is not a shred of evidence that Iraq did, in fact, not disarm, as you claim. The only thing there has been was FORGED evidence by the US. But I take it that forgery is ok when you 'know' you're right.

Can't wait to see how this report pans out. (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030407/ts_nm/iraq_usa_cache_dc&cid=564&ncid=1473)
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. forces near Baghdad found a weapons cache of around 20 medium-range missiles equipped with potent chemical weapons, the U.S. news station National Public Radio reported on Monday.



NPR, which attributed the report to a top official with the 1st Marine Division, said the rockets, BM-21 missiles, were equipped with sarin and mustard gas and were "ready to fire." It quoted the source as saying new U.S. intelligence data showed the chemicals were "not just trace elements."


It said the cache was discovered by Marines with the 101st Airborne Division, which was following up behind the Army after it seized Baghdad's international airport.
I'll be getting back to you, Ollie.

Abe - Go read the quotes I cited from Blix again. Read slow.

[kingpengvin]

Looks like these weapons are coming out of the woodworks

like these weapons here (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2521947)

It looks like we finally have the smoking gun. I still think there are some serious issues on how the United States dealt with UN inspectors as far as information given to them and whether the United States was ever serious about getting resolutions.
However, I'm sure the Liberation rhetoric of the last two weeks will shift back the the WMD talk out of the Whitehose... sorry Whithouse.

[Milum]

Kingpingvin : I still think there are some serious issues on how the United States dealt with UN inspectors as far as information given to them and whether the United States was ever serious about getting resolutions.

Ah ha! At last. This is the answer to the operating question...

When Iraqi WMD are found, how will war opponents explain them away?

Get it? That Abominable Damnation, the United States, withheld crucial information about the location of Weapons of Mass Destruction from Hans and the Good Ole Boys at the UN just so we could get our cowboy kicks beating up on poor ole Saddam Hussein and the Seven Divisions.

Geez.

[Abe]

Originally posted by Milossarian
Abe - Go read the quotes I cited from Blix again. Read slow.

I read slow, and you are still not making the sense your assertions would suggest you think you are making. Nor are you presenting claims that are new or unrefuted. Nor is it unusual for you, as we have seen, to forcefully cram the words of Unmovic in whatever twisted little scenario you happen to be working on.

So, unless you can provide the oneiromancer to interpret your elephant-on-stilts output, maybe you ought to start supporting your points better. Or stop repeating those tired and decrepit arguments entirely. Also useless are the pre-emptive attacks against those who remain likely to present valid objections to Misleader's idea of foreign affairs when and if Iraqi WMD are confirmed.

I was glad to see you make a couple decent points in Collounsbury's thread though. Points that would suggest you agree that the pre-war preparations were bungled by Bush & co., including presumably losing UN support, failing to convince anyone of the need for this war, etc.

[Abe]

Originally posted by Milossarian
Abe - Go read the quotes I cited from Blix again. Read slow.

I read slow, and you are still not making the sense your assertions would suggest you think you are making. Nor are you presenting claims that are new or unrefuted. Nor is it unusual for you, as we have seen, to forcefully cram the words of Unmovic in whatever twisted little scenario you happen to be working on.

So, unless you can provide the oneiromancer to interpret your elephant-on-stilts output, maybe you ought to start supporting your points better. Or stop repeating those tired and decrepit arguments entirely. Also useless are the pre-emptive attacks against those who remain likely to present valid objections to Misleader's idea of foreign affairs when and if Iraqi WMD are confirmed.

I was glad to see you make a couple good points in Collounsbury's thread though. Points that seem to indicate you agree that the pre-war preparations were bungled by Bush & co., including presumably losing UN support, failing to convince of the need for this war, etc.

[OliverH]

Originally posted by Milossarian


Can't wait to see how this report pans out. (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030407/ts_nm/iraq_usa_cache_dc&cid=564&ncid=1473)

I'll be getting back to you, Ollie.

[/B]

Once you finished dealing with a bunch of pesticides?

But thanks for demonstrating that you consider it fine to violate the law to show someone is violating the law. Thanks for demonstrating so thoroughly that people like you have a serious problem granting others the rights they request for themselves. Thanks for demonstrating so thoroughly that dishonesty, disingeneousness and paranoia are the foundations for this war.

[Jackmannii]

Originally posted by OliverH
Once you finished dealing with a bunch of pesticides?

OliverH makes a good point about possible origins of the latest batch of suspected chemicals still being tested. We should not jump to conclusions about them being banned nerve agents when they may well be agricultural pesticides.

And given the close chemical relationship between some pesticides and nerve gas, it would be foolhardy to assume that establishing existence of the latter in Iraq is proof of hostile intentions. Given the West's oppressive trade sanctions, the Iraqis have had to improvise to feed their hungry people.

Even now, the Iraqi Information Minister is probably holding evidence of the harmlessness of chemical agents, either in the form of government bulletins to farmers or copies of advertisements in Iraqi media. The ads might go something like this:

Farmers! Tired of insects devasting your millet crop? Now you can get higher yields with new SuperSarin&trade;!!

SuperSarin&trade; kills cucumber beetles, armyworms, nematodes and horseflies on contact. Works great on rebellious Kurds and infidels too!! Available in handy aerosol cans or missile-tipped projectiles (for those big jobs).

You'll have your biggest crop ever! Your neighbor Ibrahim will be green (with envy)!!

Stop by your local farm supply outlet today, and look for the giant poster of Saddam's beloved cousin, 'Chemical' Ali. You'll be glad you did!

Remember, that's SuperSarin&trade;, available wherever fine chemical agents (for agricultural use only) are sold.