Nailing "Every intelligence agency in the world believed..."

[intention]

[QUOTE=RedFury]

…

Most people (outside the US it would appear) had enough common sense to realize that even if Saddam’s Iraq had some kind of WMD, it was cert6ainly NO threat to the mighty US of A. After all, by whatever dubious means he could deliver these WMDs Stateside (other than the 45 minute panic-attack infused by loyal asswipe Blair with no foundation) almost everyone with two brain-cells to rub together knew that Iraq would become a glass parking lot within minutes if that dramatic scenario held a scintilla of truth.

…

[/QUOTE]
I find this point of view quite curious. A threat to the peace and stability of the Middle East is not only a threat to the US, it is a threat to the entire world. Saddam had shown in the Gulf War that he was quite willing to attack Israel (a non-combatant) without provocation. While he did not have nuclear weapons, he was actively trying to build, buy, borrow, or steal them. He had spoken often of his dream of a ‘Jew-free’ Middle East. He had billions of dollars to put towards the realization of that dream. That combination seems like a real and credible threat to the Middle East, and to the world.

Whether that justified the war is an entirely different argument, but to believe that Saddam posed no threat to the US or the planet simply because he lacked ICBMs seems incredibly naive in our post 9/11 world.

w.

[Frank]

[QUOTE=intention]
Saddam had shown in the Gulf War that he was quite willing to attack Israel (a non-combatant) without provocation.
[/quote]

“Without provocation” is a bit strong. Israel is our strongest ally in the Middle East. He had hopes that they would retaliate, and thereby draw other Arab nations into the fray, or at least dissuade them from supporting our liberation of Kuwait. His strategy failed, and he had not attacked Israel since.

While he did not have nuclear weapons, he was actively trying to build, buy, borrow, or steal them. He had spoken often of his dream of a ‘Jew-free’ Middle East. He had billions of dollars to put towards the realization of that dream. That combination seems like a real and credible threat to the Middle East, and to the world.

Which enemy of Israel shall we attack next? Iraq again? After we have left and the Shi’ite leadership has taken control? Saddam was no threat; his arms and his money were severely restricted in the aftermath of the war - the inspections worked! - and to believe that he was a threat to anyone outside the 1/2 of his country that he actually controlled is an extreme misinterpretation of the facts.

[intention]

Frank, thank you for your post. As I said, I distinguish between whether Saddam was a threat, and whether that threat was enough to justify invasion. You seem to have missed that part of my post.

While it was true, as you say, that Saddam “had not attacked Israel since [the Gulf War]”, he was certainly supporting terrorists who were attacking Israel, as well as paying money to the families of suicide bombers attacking Israel … I must admit, I fail to see how that is not attacking Israel, albeit by proxy.

And since it is documented that Saddam was modifying his missiles for extended range, enough to hit oh, say, Tel Aviv, I suppose he was doing that just for fun? Or perhaps, as you imply, it was to threaten “the 1/2 of his country that he actually controlled”?

Finally, if 9/11 has taught us anything, it is that it is not necessary to have billions of dollars or a standing army to cause great havoc. However, since he had both, it would be an “extreme misinterpretation of the facts” to think that he was toothless, or no threat to Middle East stability.

w.

[XT]

[QUOTE=Frank]
Which enemy of Israel shall we attack next? Iraq again? After we have left and the Shi’ite leadership has taken control? Saddam was no threat; his arms and his money were severely restricted in the aftermath of the war - the inspections worked! - and to believe that he was a threat to anyone outside the 1/2 of his country that he actually controlled is an extreme misinterpretation of the facts.
[/QUOTE]

In rhetrospect its quite true…Saddam was little or no threat to anyone outside of Iraq, at least on a macro scale (I’m quite sure he was capable of some micro scale type mischief…say an assassination attempt or terror type operation if it came to it). Its fashionable now a days to look back and just know that Saddam was no threat, that the sanctions were working and he was completely helpless and contained. I have serious doubts that there were many people at the time who KNEW just how helpless Iraq was…because Saddam went out of his way make Iraq look much more capable than it turned out to be. And of course, on the paramilitary side of things (stuff like the Fedayeen) turned out to be quite capable indeed, ehe?

That said, were you personally a big fan of the sanctions? Were you willing to have them in place indefinitely? Do you think that The World™ would have been willing to keep the things in place indefinitely in an alternative universe where the US leaves Iraq alone and focus’s on Afghanistan? :dubious: I think had the US not gone off the deep end wrt Iraq when and how we did, had Bush not focused (maybe fixated is a better word) on Iraq the way he did that eventually (a year? Two? Maybe 5?) those sanctions would have been lifted…either that or the corruption in the Oil for Food program would have become even more pervasive.

So what, right? Right. Bush didn’t invade Iraq because he thought the sanctions were going to be lifted and that this would have pretty much freed Iraq to rebuild its military effectiveness. He had the US invade because he believed (or maybe didn’t, depending where you stand on this) that Iraq HAD a capable military, and HAD weapons that could become a threat to either the US directly ( :dubious: ), or more plausably to US interests world wide…especially in the ME. Understand I’m not claiming (nor do I think) that they, or the very real possibility they would be lifted, justified our invasion of Iraq…it didn’t.

The only reason I bring this all up is that while you are right, the sanctions (mostly…see Oil for Food) worked in crippling the Iraqi military rebirth, these were not very popular with what later became the anti-war crowd prior to our invasion of Iraq…not until, in rhetrospect, we learned just how crippled the Iraqi’s were because of them. Then suddenly they became the best things since sliced bread, a banner to hold up to the pro-war crowd (who of course supported those sanctions PRIOR to the war ) to show them how stupid they were to invade Iraq when everything was under control.

To me, the irony is that its likely in that alternative universe that many here (perhaps yourself) would be dead set against those sanctions had things worked out differently…certainly if we attempted to keep them in place for as long as Saddam (and son’s?) lived and were in charge. Why do I think that? I’m watching another thread where the discussion is sanctions against Cuba, and seeing people say things to the effect that the sanctions should have been lifted in the 60’s or 70’s. While this isn’t a direct parallel by any means, it gives an insite into the thinking of those posters, and how people view things like long term sanctions when they have such a huge impact on a nations economy.

-XT

[Frank]

@intention

While it was true, as you say, that Saddam “had not attacked Israel since [the Gulf War]”, he was certainly supporting terrorists who were attacking Israel, as well as paying money to the families of suicide bombers attacking Israel … I must admit, I fail to see how that is not attacking Israel, albeit by proxy.

Quite frankly, that’s Israel’s problem. I support Israel to a large extent; I have no problem with our monetary support and arms supplies to them, but if Israel perceives a direct danger, then they can use those to defend themselves. The U.S. did not barge in directly in any of the Israeli-Arab wars, and should not use defending Israel as an excuse to invade Iraq.

[QUOTE=xtisme]
That said, were you personally a big fan of the sanctions? Were you willing to have them in place indefinitely?
[/quote]

Yes, I was a fan of the sanctions. I may be a liberal, but I’m not stupid.

A non-stupid intelligence service would have reported to the president that Saddam was a toothless tiger, a tiger whose roars were intended for his own people and Iran.

Do you think that The World™ would have been willing to keep the things in place indefinitely in an alternative universe where the US leaves Iraq alone and focus’s on Afghanistan?

Of course, I can’t say. You may be right. I would hope that you are not. I am, I must admit, still very upset about the lack of attention to Afghanistan, a country which did support our enemy, a country which the world supported our invasion of, a country in which - had we not been distracted by a shiny thing - we could have made better, a country in which the sworn allies of our enemy are regaining control.

He had the US invade because he believed (or maybe didn’t, depending where you stand on this) that Iraq HAD a capable military, and HAD weapons that could become a threat to either the US directly ( :dubious: ), or more plausably to US interests world wide…especially in the ME.

Of course I disagree. He invaded because he wanted to. That’s all.

The Oil for Food corruption, as far as I know, was only personally enriching the corrupt, both in and out of Iraq. I do not know that the money was going for any state purposes.

I’m watching another thread where the discussion is sanctions against Cuba, and seeing people say things to the effect that the sanctions should have been lifted in the 60’s or 70’s. While this isn’t a direct parallel by any means, it gives an insite into the thinking of those posters, and how people view things like long term sanctions when they have such a huge impact on a nations economy.

Though not in that thread, the sanctions against Cuba should never have been imposed. It’s not a direct parallel at all.

[PatriotX]

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Its fashionable now a days to look back and just know that Saddam was no threat, that the sanctions were working and he was completely helpless and contained. I have serious doubts that there were many people at the time who KNEW just how helpless Iraq was…because Saddam went out of his way make Iraq look much more capable than it turned out to be.
[/quote]
Well the USIC said Hussein was drawing a line short of attacking the US. They also said that he was unlikely to attack the US directly or by proxy with conventional or WMD.
The learned Dr C Rice wrote that Iraq was constrained by the threat of “national obliteration”.

So there were some pretty big hints out there that were known to people in the US Intelligence Community and the Bush Admin and other fringe organizations like that.