What if...

[Sandman]

I agree that simply insisting that the US has fabricated evidence is not helpful. What we should look out for is suspicious changes in the line on WMD discoveries, lack of third party confirmation and attempts to play up non-evidence, such as gas masks and 'precursor' chemicals.

To those that insist that Iraq does possess 'WMD', I must ask, why haven't they been used?

And lets not forget that chemical and biological weapons are overrated crud, with very limited military usefulness.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Sandman
To those that insist that Iraq does possess 'WMD', I must ask, why haven't they been used?
And lets not forget that chemical and biological weapons are overrated crud, with very limited military usefulness.

I'm no expert, but does Saddam even have the means of deploying such weapons against the US? He can hardly nuke, gas or plague his own country and if he had the ability to launch missiles from Baghdad to Washington I think he would have launched a couple whether he had nukes to fit on the ends or not.

[Elok]

I will give the Coolition a few weeks after the end of hostilities to find EVERYTHING they kept saying Iraq had, or finding where it all of a sudden went. After that they get no more grace period.

You hear that, Dubya? GePap's comin' to get you! You better run! Yeah, you! That's right!



Sorry. It had to be said.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ming
It seems like a can't win situation.

If they find evidence... the people against the war will claim it was fabricated. Some people won't change their minds either way...

On the other hand, perhaps some people with long memories remember the reasons given for the actions taken in Guatemala, Iran, Zaire and Angola. And the lies they were later shown to be...

1953

Iran – CIA overthrows the democratically elected Mohammed Mossadegh in a military coup, after he threatened to nationalize British oil. The CIA replaces him with a dictator, the Shah of Iran, whose secret police, SAVAK, is as brutal as the Gestapo.

Allegedly because Mossadegh was soft on communism. A funny reason really, given that the conservative nationalist had been criticised by the Communist Tudeh Party of Iran for being too favourable to U.S. oil interests. The self same oil interests who profited from the coup by getting 40% of Iran's oil wealth.

1954

Guatemala — CIA overthrows the democratically elected Jacob Arbenz in a military coup. Arbenz has threatened to nationalize the Rockefeller-owned United Fruit Company, in which CIA Director Allen Dulles also owns stock. Arbenz is replaced with a series of right-wing dictators whose bloodthirsty policies will kill over 100,000 Guatemalans in the next 40 years.

Again publicly because the liberal democrat Arbenz was soft on communism, and a commie takeover was imminent...Clearly businessmen (who happened to be in the C.I.A., the president's cabinet, and the U.S. ambassadorship at the United Nations) thought the same. Despite any lack of evidence, and without reference to their extensive financial interests in United Fruit.

1975

Angola — Eager to demonstrate American military resolve after its defeat in Vietnam, Henry Kissinger launches a CIA-backed war in Angola. Contrary to Kissinger’s assertions, Angola is a country of little strategic importance and not seriously threatened by communism. The CIA backs the brutal leader of UNITA, Jonas Savimbi. This polarizes Angolan politics and drives his opponents into the arms of Cuba and the Soviet Union for survival. Congress will cut off funds in 1976, but the CIA is able to run the war off the books until 1984, when funding is legalized again. This entirely pointless war kills over 300,000 Angolans. However, Gulf Oil subsidiaries keep the oil flowing, Savimbi keeps the diamonds coming, the South Africans and the C.I.A. help smuggle out endangered species, ivory, and animal skins, in breach of international law, and U.N. sanctions.

Read the words, but watch the actions, and the aftermath.