# Whose point to prove? (WoMD and the war on Iraq) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 23, 2002, 9:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whose-point-to-prove-womd-and-the-war-on-iraq/144511 "2002-12-23T09:07:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Chumpsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9a140/32.png) [@Chumpsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chumpsky)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2002, 9:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whose-point-to-prove-womd-and-the-war-on-iraq/144511/21 "2002-12-24T09:27:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SenorBeef \* > \*\*I’m a bit confused, then - what’s the purpose of the inspectors? \*\* The point of the whole inspections business was to try to stop a U.S. invasion. Nobody can take this whole charade seriously who has an ounce of sense, or who isn’t a snivelling coward afraid that Saddam is going to launch an anthrax bomb from his cave underneath Baghdad right into his front yard. Please. Basically, this seemed the only chance the world had to keep the U.S. and its lapdog the U.K. from invading Iraq. Although God knows why the existence of Iraqi WMD would justify a war, if no weapons are found it at least gives the world a chance to avoid a catastrophic war. It’s funny that the only people who are afraid of Saddam are Iraqis and Americans. What is it? Are Americans just cowardly by nature? ---
**Author:** ![Early\_Out](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Early\_Out](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Early_Out)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2002, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whose-point-to-prove-womd-and-the-war-on-iraq/144511/22 "2002-12-24T13:56:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose \* > **When the cops pull you over for speeding and ask you, “Mind if we look in the trunk?”, if you’ve got a clear conscience, and if you’re smart, you say, "Sure, go ahead."** [off-topic, but worth mentioning…] A bit of friendly advice, one that one of my law professors made very clear to us: _never, ever consent to a search_. That’ll be the one time that the guy who changed your tire a couple of weeks ago had a roach in his top pocket, and accidentally dropped it into your trunk when he bent over to lift your spare tire out of there. You can protest to your heart’s content that you didn’t know anything about it, but since you consented to the search, you’re screwed. Or, that’ll be the one time that the cop who pulled you over has decided he doesn’t like your looks, or maybe wants to seize your car to boost his department’s budget, and will miraculously “find” a vial of crack under your jumper cables. If the police have probable cause to search your trunk, they’re going to do so with or without your consent, but the burden of proof is on them to demonstrate that the search was constitutionally legit. ---
**Author:** ![Olentzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90ced4/32.png) [@Olentzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Olentzero)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2002, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whose-point-to-prove-womd-and-the-war-on-iraq/144511/23 "2002-12-24T15:51:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose \* > **It would be dumb to say, “Fuck you, officer, no way am I letting you look in the trunk.” Why not just let him look?** It’s not dumb, it’s your _right_. At least as I understand it. Although I should think a modicum of respect would certainly not harm things. The whole problem with letting government agents (local, state, federal or international) look into every corner of our lives is that it’s a total gateway to spying. It simply can’t be justified on the grounds of “I’m not doing anything wrong, what have I got to hide?”. Iraq complained that the inspectors there in the late 1990s were engaged in espionage to help the US more effectively prosecute the ensuing bombing - a charge that was later verified. This administration’s pursuit at home of broader use of wiretaps and a reduction in legal requirements thereon, coupled with this ridiculous pattern of mass arrests of Muslim and Middle Eastern immigrants, secret trials, and all other sorts of skullduggery makes me even _less_ inclined to consent to any sort of searches - at some point, a government agency and I are likely to disagree on an item or activity’s legality (and I’m not talking about marijuana use), and I harbor no illusions as to who would win in such a situation. Nixon had COINTELPRO back in the 70s; I don’t doubt Bush & Co. are trying to do the same thing now. **Chumpsky** , I disagree with you when you say that the UN inspections are a measure to stave off war in Iraq. War is inevitable whether the inspectors find WoMD or not - Bush has already called up reservists and the total number of troops expected to go in will top 300,000 (including troops from countries besides the US). The UN inspections actually serve to add legitimacy to the war effort - if they do find WoMD (a scenario I think highly unlikely), the war will commence; if they don’t, the US will holler “Iraq is lying, the dirty sandnigger bastards!” and the war will commence. ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2002, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whose-point-to-prove-womd-and-the-war-on-iraq/144511/24 "2002-12-24T19:46:34Z")
> [@](#): > > Can you point us to any incidents of stonewalling? Yes, dear, they stonewalled from 1991 right up until this fall. > **[Syndication](https://www.washingtonpost.com/syndication/)** > > The Washington Post's News Service and Syndication page. > [@](#): > > On March 3, 1991, the coalition forces of the Persian Gulf War signed the Safwan Accords, ending hostilities in the insane conflict Iraq had forced. On April 3, the United Nations passed Security Council Resolution 687 requiring Iraq to end its weapons-of-mass-destruction programs, recognize Kuwait, account for missing Kuwaitis, return Kuwaiti property and end support for international terrorism. Iraq immediately began a decade-long pattern of defiance, alternating with stalling, alternating with tactical capitulation, alternating with more defiance. This was particularly so concerning what remains the central issue, the demand that it destroy its weapons of mass destruction and stop developing new ones. > > To enforce and conduct inspections, the U.N. created a Special Commission, UNSCOM, which went to work in April 1991. Almost immediately, Iraq began impeding the inspections. My point was that if they truly had nothing to hide all those years, why stonewall? ---
**Author:** ![X\_Slayer\_ALE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/bbe5ce/32.png) [@X\_Slayer\_ALE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/X_Slayer_ALE)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2002, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whose-point-to-prove-womd-and-the-war-on-iraq/144511/25 "2002-12-24T19:59:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Olentzero \* > \*\*Does the United States allow inspectors to do the same here? Sauce for the goose and all that (no offense intended). \*\* I dont see what for. We have WoMD. Everyone knows that. Heck, we’re the only nation that has ever used them. What do you need to inspect the US for? We got them, we invented them, we make lots of them. We’re not hiding that fact from anyone. and we can account for every one of them. Iraq is not supposed to have them. They say they dont have them but are buying uranium for them. The have lots of dual uses machinery to make medicine but have a severe shortage of medicine. They say they have nothing to hide during the last inspection but we have spy videos of trucks moving away from a site that was to be inspected. ---
**Author:** ![Saen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d2c977/32.png) [@Saen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saen)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2002, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whose-point-to-prove-womd-and-the-war-on-iraq/144511/26 "2002-12-24T20:13:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SenorBeef \* > \*\*I’m a bit confused, then - what’s the purpose of the inspectors? > > If Iraq claims to have destroyed WMD, and gives the paperwork involved, but doesn’t have video of the actual destruction (or whatever we require), but the UN inspectors can’t find WMD, then what happens? War anyway? If so, what’s the point of the inspectors? Just to see if we can stumble across WMDs? \*\* Why do you think they made such a big deal about the Iraq declaration and the deadline. The inspectors are not the means to an end necessarily, as the media makes them out. The means to an end is that the world knows that Saddam had WMD. And that he has lied and is lying to us about what he did with them. If the inspectors find WMD we will not go directly to war. But we will tell Saddam to dissarm them or we will do it for him. But we also want to know what he did with his proverbial guns. The onus is upon him to start or stop the war. The inspectors are just a tool to help keep him honest. Cus I don’t think anyonne in the world (except maybe **Chumpsky** ) even flirts with the idea that Saddam is telling the truth. The Idea is that he is already in breach because we know he has them but he will not dissarm. Until he does, and proves it, we are building up for war. I will say this much, either Bush is playing the biggest bluff and bluster game that I have ever heard of to make Saddam comply, or Saddam is about to get a major ass whuppin’. ---
**Author:** ![Saen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d2c977/32.png) [@Saen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saen)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2002, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whose-point-to-prove-womd-and-the-war-on-iraq/144511/27 "2002-12-24T20:28:08Z")
I also forgot to add that Iraq’s “paperwork” only showed stuff that was either recycled from old news or copied from past inspections. If you watch the news, all of the UNSC and the Inspectors pretty much agree that the declaration was not the information that they asked for. They pretty much just listed the stuff we knew they destroyed or what we destroyed ourselves after '91. It’s not just the US, the entire UNSC wants to know what he did with the stuff he has had since, and Iraq is just saying they have nothing else when we know they did and probably still do. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2002, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whose-point-to-prove-womd-and-the-war-on-iraq/144511/28 "2002-12-24T21:25:24Z")
> [@](#): > > I also forgot to add that Iraq’s “paperwork” only showed stuff that was either recycled from old news or copied from past inspections. Cite please ? I’ve read plenty of spin on this, but not yet an impartial evalutation by an uninterested party. Very few countries, much less the press, even have access to the documents yet. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2002, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whose-point-to-prove-womd-and-the-war-on-iraq/144511/29 "2002-12-24T22:06:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Saen \* > \*\*Cus I don’t think anyonne in the world (except maybe **Chumpsky** ) even flirts with the idea that Saddam is telling the truth. \*\* I do, actually. Not that I give him any credit, but rather that I don’t assume everything he says is a lie. The only real source I’ve had about his behavior is the American government and their media lapdogs - a source that has a vested interest in discrediting him. Given the shaky grounds on which the first gulf war was initiated (I get the impression Iraq was pressured into invading Kuwait purposely to create a war), I don’t automatically trust or discount anything Saddam does. The fact that everyone else automatically assumes that Saddam is lying, despite (generally) having no source of information besides the American government, only reinforces my distrust. Sorry, I don’t mean to sound like Chumpsky - I’m pretty reasonable most of the time. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Early\_Out](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Early\_Out](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Early_Out)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2002, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whose-point-to-prove-womd-and-the-war-on-iraq/144511/30 "2002-12-24T22:57:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose \* > \*\*Yes, dear, they stonewalled from 1991 right up until this fall. > > [http://www.postwritersgroup.com/archives/kell0917.htm](http://www.postwritersgroup.com/archives/kell0917.htm) > My point was that if they truly had nothing to hide all those years, why stonewall? \*\* We’re all well-aware of that, but the stonewalling has, to all appearances, stopped completely. Hell, they’re even letting members of the press come in on the heels of the U.N. inspectors to have a look around. There’s absolutely no doubt that the Iraqis _did_ have all sorts of nasty weapons programs back in the 1990s, which is why they played cat-and-mouse for so many years. What seems to be completely absent right now is any concrete evidence that they still do. The U.S. administration keeps saying, “Trust us, we’ve got the goods on them,” but hasn’t been particularly forthcoming. Personally, I find it hard to believe that a regime like Saddam’s could actually swear off WoMD - in fact, I think I’d bet that they still do have plenty of forbidden development programs going on. But if we go charging in there in the absence of any tangible evidence, half the Islamic world is going to apply for Al-Qaeda membership. Not a comforting thought. That’s what makes me nervous right now - our government seems to be awfully trigger-happy, and that could bring us to some real grief. ---
**Author:** ![Olentzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90ced4/32.png) [@Olentzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Olentzero)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2002, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whose-point-to-prove-womd-and-the-war-on-iraq/144511/31 "2002-12-25T20:27:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SenorBeef \* > **I get the impression Iraq was pressured into invading Kuwait purposely to create a war** Not exactly true. The US didn’t pressure Saddam into invading Kuwait, but they certainly gave him the impression that they weren’t going to do anything if he did. April Glaspie was the US ambassador to Iraq in 1990, and in the summer of that year she sat down for an extended interview with Saddam Hussein, the transcript of which is reproduced [here](http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/glaspie.html). Here’s the relevant text: > [@](#): > > But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. > > I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late 60’s. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via Klibi or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly. Sure, lip service is paid to the hope that the issue can be solved through negotiation using mediators of one stripe or another, but it’s hardly a firm statement against a military solution. Certainly a large enough loophole for the Iraqi army to crawl through. If Glaspie had been instructed by Baker to state explicitly “Don’t invade Kuwait” and done so, the US would probably have a better pretext for the Gulf War (not that I would have supported it under those circumstances, either). The actions against Iraq over the whole decade have been on the flimsiest of pretexts. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2002, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whose-point-to-prove-womd-and-the-war-on-iraq/144511/32 "2002-12-25T22:36:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Olentzero \* > \*\*Not exactly true. The US didn’t pressure Saddam into invading Kuwait, but they certainly gave him the impression that they weren’t going to do anything if he did. \*\* I also believe they pressured the usually meek Kuwaiti royal family into slant drilling and stealing Iraqi oil. When the American media pronounced that Saddam claimed that Kuwait was stealing their oil, they pretty much rolled their eyes and said ‘yeah right’, but he actually, to my knowledge, was telling the truth. Also, the US supported Iraq during the latter half of the Iran-Iraq war and promised aid to rebuild in order to push Iraq into a more commited attack. Once Iraq did as we wished, and then requested their aid, we suddenly decided we couldn’t be allies with Iraq due to their use of chemical weapons (we didn’t care before, of course, and I’m not even sure if they actually did or not - I haven’t researched that indepedently). US Policy towards the middle east in the 80s seemed to be geared towards grinding down every powerful military (except Israel, of course) with the intent of achieving regional military dominance. When Iraq became too strong, we manufactured a war against them. But maybe I’m paranoid. ---
**Author:** ![Olentzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90ced4/32.png) [@Olentzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Olentzero)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2002, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whose-point-to-prove-womd-and-the-war-on-iraq/144511/33 "2002-12-26T14:52:37Z")
'Tain’t paranoia, **SenorBeef**. 'S imperialism. You got any cites for the pressure on Kuwait to slant-drill? I’d really be interested in seeing info on that. ---
**Author:** ![grimpixie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/ecb155/32.png) [@grimpixie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/grimpixie)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2003, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whose-point-to-prove-womd-and-the-war-on-iraq/144511/34 "2003-01-15T15:13:50Z")
The latest developments: [Inspectors search Saddam palace](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2660201.stm) > [@](#): > > On Tuesday, US President George W Bush warned that “time was running out” for Saddam Hussein to surrender the weapons of mass destruction which the US insists he owns. > > The comments came in stark contrast to those from European Union officials - and UN Secretary General Kofi Annan - warning against an early intervention and calling for inspectors to be given more time. [Iraq: Prepare for the worst](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2653067.stm) > [@](#): > > If you take the gloomy view, you believe that it doesn’t actually matter very much what the inspectors find. This is the “Heads the US wins, tails Iraq loses” scenario. > > If they find evidence that Iraq has or has tried to acquire illegal weapons, the United States could declare that Iraq has failed to cooperate and was in breach of Security Council resolution 1441. The US might then attack, with or without Council backing, with or without allies, possibly in mid to late February. > > If nothing is found, then the US might argue (and probably soon after 27 January) that Iraq has hidden its weapons and attack anyway. > > \ > > The optimists hope that if the inspectors do uncover weapons of mass destruction, then that process will be allowed to continue until Iraq is fully disarmed. > > And if the inspectors don’t find anything definitive, they should be given that “time and space” to go on looking - maybe for as along as the year which the International Atomic Energy Agency says is needed. If **Olentzero** and **SenorBeef** are still around, I would be interested in reading more about the supposed pressure by the US to “manufacture” a war in the middle ease last time around… ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2003, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whose-point-to-prove-womd-and-the-war-on-iraq/144511/35 "2003-01-15T15:33:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Olentzero \* > \*\*Not exactly true. The US didn’t pressure Saddam into invading Kuwait, but they certainly gave him the impression that they weren’t going to do anything if he did. April Glaspie was the US ambassador to Iraq in 1990, and in the summer of that year she sat down for an extended interview with Saddam Hussein, the transcript of which is reproduced [here](http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/glaspie.html). :sigh: **Olentzero,** could you at least note that the transcript was provided by the Iraqi government? Could you also note that Glaspie has denounced the transcript as [“a fabrication,”](http://csmweb2.emcweb.com/durable/1999/05/27/p23s3.htm) though she does acknowledge that a “great deal” of it was accurate? Could you also please note that Tarik Aziz, then Prime Minister of Iraq, has affirmed that Glaspie did not give Iraq a green light, and that Iraq expected the US to be, at the least, pissed? (From the same link above) “She just listened and made general comments,” he told USA Today [in 1992]. “We knew the United States would have a strong reaction.” Thank you. Sua ---
**Author:** ![Olentzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90ced4/32.png) [@Olentzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Olentzero)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2003, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whose-point-to-prove-womd-and-the-war-on-iraq/144511/36 "2003-01-15T16:17:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SuaSponte \* > **:sigh: Olentzero, could you at least note that the transcript was provided by the Iraqi government?** It was noted in the article. > [@](#): > > **Could you also note that Glaspie has denounced the transcript as “a fabrication,” though she does acknowledge that a “great deal” of it was accurate?** Had I actually known she’d done so (and I’d love to see the document or transcript where she actually says that, instead of just a report that she did) I would have mentioned it. But if it’s a fabrication, how can it be accurate? It’s like saying “They’re liars, but they told the truth”. And which parts of the transcript does Glaspie claim are fabricated? > [@](#): > > **Could you also please note that Tarik Aziz, then Prime Minister of Iraq, has affirmed that Glaspie did not give Iraq a green light, and that Iraq expected the US to be, at the least, pissed?** When, and only when, the US can conclusively prove that Glaspie never said > [@](#): > > But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. will I concede the point that no green light was given. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2003, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whose-point-to-prove-womd-and-the-war-on-iraq/144511/37 "2003-01-15T16:37:31Z")
Perhaps **Duck Duck Goose** ’s analogy works better if the person stopped by the police is out on parole for armed robbery, and his parole officer tells him to turn out his pockets to see if he is carrying drugs or weapons. Iraq doesn’t have the legal or moral right to refuse the inspections, or to fail to co-operate with them fully. > [@](#): > > ## quote: > > ## I also forgot to add that Iraq’s “paperwork” only showed stuff that was either recycled from old news or copied from past inspections. > > Cite please ? I’ve read plenty of spin on this, but not yet an impartial evalutation by an uninterested party. Not sure who you might consider an uninterested party, but [according to Hans Blix,](http://www.useu.be/Categories/Global/Affairs/Iraq/Jan0903USIraqBreach.html) who is chairman of the UNMOVIC, > [@](#): > > …the report 'didn’t answer the questions already put in '90, 91, [and in] ‘99 by the Amorim Report…we are not satisfied.’ The same page has the reaction of the US ambassador to the UN. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2003, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whose-point-to-prove-womd-and-the-war-on-iraq/144511/38 "2003-01-15T16:47:30Z")
> [@](#): > > ## When, and only when, the US can conclusively prove that Glaspie never said quote: > > ## But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. > > will I concede the point that no green light was given. Two points - 1. You are asking to prove a negative, and 2. You are talking on the phone to your aunt. You tell her, “My next door neighbor keeps stealing the apples off the tree on the boundary.” She tells you, “I don’t know anything about that.” So you break into his house, shoot his wife, and steal his DVD player. When the police arrive, you claim it was OK because your aunt said it was fine to do what you did. Come on. That’s like justifying the Bay of Pigs by saying, “The Swiss didn’t say we couldn’t!” Sorry for the double post. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2003, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whose-point-to-prove-womd-and-the-war-on-iraq/144511/39 "2003-01-15T16:52:48Z")
> [@](#): > > _by Olentzero_ > But if it’s a fabrication, how can it be accurate? It’s like saying “They’re liars, but they told the truth”. You missed the key words - Glaspie did not say it was accurate, but that a “great deal” of it was accurate. Anyway, it’s an easy two-step process, and indeed pretty much necessary to create a plausible fabrication: (1) take an actual transcript of the meeting; (2) change a few key words or sentences. 90% of the transcript remains accurate, the other 10% is false. Hence a fabrication (it is not the actual transcript) in which a “great deal” is accurate. > [@](#): > > ## quote: > > ## Could you also please note that Tarik Aziz, then Prime Minister of Iraq, has affirmed that Glaspie did not give Iraq a green light, and that Iraq expected the US to be, at the least, pissed? > > ## When, and only when, the US can conclusively prove that Glaspie never said quote: > > ## But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. > > will I concede the point that no green light was given. This beggars belief. Tarik Fucking Aziz states that Glaspie did not give Iraq the green light, that she only made general comments, and that Iraq expected the US to have a strong response to the invasion, and that’s not good enough for you?!! The #2 man in the Iraqi government did not think Glaspie gave Iraq the green light, but **you** want more?! Isn’t the question of whether a green light was given determined by whether the recipient believed they got a green light?!! Unreal. If, even after reconsidering Aziz’s statement, you still think review of Glaspie’s testimony is necessary, let me know and I’ll try to track it down. Sua ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2003, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whose-point-to-prove-womd-and-the-war-on-iraq/144511/40 "2003-01-15T17:07:01Z")
So what the hell is a “strong response”? The removal of our Ambassador? Canceling Madonna’s Baghdad tour? Stamping our foot and declaring “tut tut!” in no uncertain terms? Clearly, war is a “strong response”, being just about the strongest. Did Ms. Glaspie state such? Did she do her very best Bugs Bunny impression and say “Of course you realize, this means war!” No, of course not, if she had, she would have said so. The language of diplomacy is a shifty thing, as it is the science of keeping options open. Nonetheless, when the consequences of an action are that drastic, that severe, it needs to be stated. Absent such a statement, a warning of “strong response” is just so much smoke and mirrors. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whose-point-to-prove-womd-and-the-war-on-iraq/144511.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whose-point-to-prove-womd-and-the-war-on-iraq/144511.md?page=3)