Iraqs Weapons Of Mass Destruction

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I don't think that anyone has said that Iraq is an immdeiate threat. Hence the emphasis on pre-emption.

The chicken-hawks are loudly proclaiming Hussein is an actual threat. Cheney said a few weeks agao that no one can doubt the threat that Hussein represents, and Bush just called Hussein a threat to the US ( )

PS What is Jane's relationship to the flight sims that bear thier name? Is it merely lending thier name or do they have actual input in thier development?

Don't know.

[Capt Dizle]

che, you would agree that Jane's does not have the raw intelligence data that Blair does? It is possible that there are human assets in place sending information out of Iraq. In this case much of that information would have to be classified.

I could see that Blair and Bush might be getting some unconfirmed reports from in country sources. In intel you have to grade all the information for its reliability. Blair wouldn't necessarily want to reveal specifics that he can't confirm, but you can bet that he knows a lot more than he is telling.

This mania that all world leaders are automatically liars is pretty nice. If and when the US attacks and finds NBC weaps you can always claim its a fraud.

[DinoDoc]

There is a difference between a threat and an immediate threat, che.

[walruskkkch]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Iran could simply say they are invading Iraq to remove the agressor Saddam and forestall an American invasion.

You really think that would fly internationally? If anything it would be a good excuse for the Europeans to join in for the sake of the "Integrity of Iraq".

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Iraq's military is reputed to be 1/4 the size it was during the first Bush-Hussein War. Iran could probably take them out with a good push.

That would be brilliant. How could Bush oppose it politically, since he himself is trying to do the very same thing?

Yeah, that kind of scenario is a very good reason not to get tied up in UN red tape. Reagan would have acted and let us know how it came out afterward. That was a president!

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Frankly, however, all the rhetoric that has been used against Hussein could be equally applied to both Israel and Pakistan. Both countries have WoMD. Both countries are agressive and have attacked their neighbors. Both countries sponsor terrorism.

In a sense this is true and in a sense it is not. Israel is not loathe to send its troops across borders when it is being attacked itself. Ditto Pakistan. However, the real difference here is that both are friendly to the United States and will listen.

Saddam once was in that category himself due to our support in the Iranian war. However, those days are long gone. Saddam is now an enemy. Nothing we say to him will restrain him now.

Moreover - Saddam was permitted to stay in power after the Gulf War on conditions sanctioned by the United Nations. This is a major difference between Pakistan and Israel.

The question is whether Saddam will comply with the UN resolutions - which include, but are not limited to, destroying his WoMD - or be allowed to flaunt international law and get away with it.

[chequita guevara]

We can only go on what is in Blair's dossier. Blair claimed that he would show the smoking gun. Blair is trying to convince his party and his nation to go to war on the basis of what was in that dossier, not on the stuff they know but can't say. Blair has failed to convince knowledgeable people. We'll see whether or not he can convince his party and the average Brit.

If they find WoMD, I'll admit I was wrong. I've done it before. Remember, in a "democracy," you don't simply accept the word of the leader. You constantly challenge his (or her) assertions, force them to prove what they say. Otherwise there's no point to being a democracy. A dictatorship will work just as well.

[GePap]

When it comes to an annalysis of weapons, the editor in chief of Janes does have more authority than Tony Blair.

The Editor of Janes is right- there is no evidence of an immediate need- this is the question pro-invasion types have yet to answer in a satisfactory manner in this debate: why now, as in invasion by january? Has any imminent breakthrough occured? I mean, Rumsfel tells us Iraq won't use WMD on invaders because the officers directly in charge will know better, yet they won't know better if Saddamm ordered them to give tem to terrorists? Do I miss his clear logic on this? I eman, if we could tarce them back to iraq, would we not tarce them back to these individuals just as clearly as we would if they use them on the field, assuming they have them at all?

All the issues of democray and freedom are not a valid argument foir immidate action just against Iraq because- they are true of many states, icnluding some also with WMD (Egypt and syria both have chem weapon, as might Lybia), and this has been true for the entire lenght of the Bush admins time, so why now?

I am not worried about Iran invading iraq, it has plenty of internal power struggles to worry about. I do worry about the bloodshed that will come with the fall of the Saddam regime, in the south as Shia's take revenge on Saddam officials and Sunni's, in the north where Turkmen, kurds, and Arabs will fight for control of the northern gas and oil fields, with reprecussions for Tukey as well as ourselves.

People alk as if when we invade, tow days in Saddam is dead, we won, problem over: No, a new set of problems just begun, and as of yet, no one has shwon me that the set of porblems after the invasion will be better than the set of problems we have now.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Yes. The sooner their job is done the sooner that blockade of Iraq can end. People forget, my side isn't with Huseein or against American necessarily. My side is with the innocent people of Iraq who are pawns of an evil dicator and a callous superpower.

We are on the same side, Che.

I assume further that you would have no objection to us arming anti-Saddam liberation forces, including the communist elements?

[chequita guevara]

I'm less worried about an invasion in January than an October Surprise.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Boris, they were not "components of chemical and biological weapons". All the bugs, probably the anthrax too at that time, were available from ATCC. You can now access them from the web, they supply pure organisms and cells for biological research.

The quoted reports include comments by laymen that would fit well along side of reports that Elvis was an alien.

Hey it is US Senate that these reports were made for. So no need to make excuses for previous US acts.


[q]
What is the point of bringing up the fact that we gave this or that assistance to Iraq in the past? That is the most lame argument. We gave everything but the shirt off our backs to Stalin and it worked out.

You can't apply personal morality or ethics to the conduct of nations. Well, you can if you are a fool.
[q]

It is not morality, it shows that "the reasons for war" they claim now do not stand. How? Well the reason is WOMD, the same country - the same man. However before they provided it to him, and he was not considered a threat, now he is, even though he is less powerful/dangerous than before.

And do not single out this as the only argument, on its own it would not stand, however there is enough questions to ask that will not be answered.

let me pick out a few things i found interesting.



3.Saddam uses patronage and violence to motivate his supporters and to control or
eliminate opposition.Potential rewards include social status,money and better
access to goods.Saddam fs extensive security apparatus and Ba fath Party
network provides oversight of Iraqi society,with informants in social,
government and military organisations.Saddam practises torture,execution andother forms of coercion against his enemies,real or suspected.His targets are
not only those who have offended him,but also their families,friends or colleagues.

Saddam acts to ensure that there are no other centres of power in Iraq.He has
crushed parties and ethnic groups,such as the communists and the Kurds,which
might try to assert themselves.Members of the opposition abroad have been the
targets of assassination attempts conducted by Iraqi security services.

Saddam has pursued a long-term programme of persecution of the Iraqi Kurds,
including through the use of chemical weapons.
1987-88,al-Majid led the gAnfal h campaign of attacks on Kurdish villages..
Amnesty International estimates that more than 100,000 Kurds were killed or
disappeared during this period.
Repression and control:some examples
œA campaign of mass arrests and killing of Shia activists led to the
execution of the Ayatollah Baqir al-Sadr and his sister in April 1980.
œIn 1983 80 members of another leading Shia family were arrested.Six of
them,all religious leaders,were executed.
œA massive chemical weapons attack on Kurds in Halabja town in March
1988 killing 5000 and injuring 10,000 more.
œA large number of officers from the Jabbur tribe were executed in the
early 1990s for the alleged disloyalty of a few of them.
After the Gulf War in 1991 Kurds in the north of Iraq rose up against Baghdad fs
rule.In response the Iraqi regime killed or imprisoned thousands,prompting a
humanitarian crisis.Over a million Kurds fled into the mountains and tried to
escape Iraq.
8.Persecution of Iraq fs Kurds continues,although the protection provided by the
northern No-Fly Zone has helped to curb the worst excesses.But outside this
zone the Baghdad regime has continued a policy of persecution and
intimidation.
9.The regime has used chemical weapons against the Kurds,most notably in an
attack on the town of Halabja in 1988 (see Part 1 Chapter 2 paragraph 9).The
implicit threat of the use of chemical weapons against the Kurds and others is an
important part of Saddam fs attempt to keep the civilian population under control.

Exactly, add to this that after the Kurdish massacre the US government allowed selling biological agents to him. That this is the man of choice to be US/ UK ally in the 1980's. That above was not a concern for them than. It is now.

What does that tell you? They don't care about that, they know that you and me will care, and that is why they provide us with this info now! they will not provide you with the info about Musharaff (pakistani dictator, "our ally"), as they do not want you and me to think that they would suport a murderous dictator.

And that our elected presidents are murderous liars?

So murderous, maybe would not qualify, but liars...

When you toy with war, there will be dead people. And noone wants to die, however if you have a reason to go to the war, you need to give a good reason for it, and it is obvious that Blair and Bush are running out of good reasons, as they have only one. WOMD. And what is the real reason, we will most likely never find out.

But still maybe we would if the questions above would be addressed publicly and openly, for which there is almost no chance of happening, even in a democracy.

Besides does anyone doubt about politicians not being liars? Come on, that is in their job description. And do you know why do they have to lie - to hide the truth from you and me.

This statement seems harsh, however look just at last 25 years, and you will see many examples of lies being CAUGHT, and we all know that with a well trained PR machine 99% of them are not brought to light.

Most famous, in UK
- Lord Archer, Neil Hamilton
US, Nixon and Clinton,

Do we need more, and those couple were caught by luck. Not by system being designed to protect against these.

At least the system is on a level where these can be legally persued at least, of course with Clinton staying alive "for minor real offence", and for major offence later - which is lying under oath. Sooo... not liars, you bet.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned


We are on the same side, Che.

I assume further that you would have no objection to us arming anti-Saddam liberation forces, including the communist elements?

It'll never happen. Turkey won't allow the Kurds to be armed and the US won't arm the Shiites in the South. The Iraqi National Congress is too weak and fractured to be of any use, even with weapons and training and air support.

I would be overjoyed to see Hussein toppled and executed by his own people. I don't think the US wants to see that, however. Heck, I'm not completely sure the US wants to see Hussein go. His continued existence justifies America's ungoing presence in the Gulf and he provdes a convenient whipping boy at home. And even in his weakened state, he serves, somewhat, as a counter to the regional power of Iran. This is why we didn't take him down in 1991.

[walruskkkch]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I'm less worried about an invasion in January than an October Surprise.

If January is good then why not now? Or is the domestic political ramifications the most troubling? If the armed forces are ready then waiting only gives Saddam that many more months to prepare.

[Capt Dizle]

Ok, you folks have worried me to death about this so I am going to tell you the real reason that the US is going to invade Iraq.

We want to have significant military presence in the Gulf. We will establish permanent bases in both Iraq and Afganistan. We will institute democratic elections and build these nations in our on image. We will use our heightened presence to leverage a settlement of the Israeli-Palestian issue. We will greatly increase our intelligence network in the Middle East and ruthlessly exterminate Islamic fundamentalist terror organizations. We will profit on oil and regional stability. We will neutralize Iran and stand as a counter to prevent India from invading Pakistan.

Bagdad will again be rich and a cultural center. McDonalds will do well there.

[chequita guevara]

An October Surprise wouldn't be for the purpose of defeating Hussein that much quicker, but for raising Republican prospects in the mid-season elections. If the invasion is held back, that means that there will more likely be a public debate on the ifs and whats of an attack.