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

[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

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:

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:

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 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:

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? **

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: **

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 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.

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.