so, it's official now

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Dieval Blix wasn't the only inspector, maybe the most outspoken against the war, but definitly not the only one...and apparently some believed Saddam was still producing and hiding WMD's....

Blix was the CHIEF inspector, yes, the man in charge of the inspections. So if he concluded that there was no WMD, then it must be the consensus view of the other inspectors. As he was very outspoken, why is it that the UK and US not take heed of what he said?

Quote by: Dieval There were also other points outlined in Deulfers reports where we have found weapons and related programs that were CLEARLY in violation of UN resolutions. They've also found his intent was clear. Lift the sanctions then restart WMD programs... Not dealing with him now just postpones the inevitable.

No, the sanctions would not have been lifted unless the US decides to, remember, about being on the permanent security council and one veto was enough to block?

Quote by: Dieval Had we waited another 10 years, with the sanctions possibly lifted, he could have had REAL WMD's and been able to inflict massive casualties to our troops..would that have been a better option?

Question being then, why didn't the US finish the job back in 1991? Loads of Iraqi rebels were expecting Saddam to be ousted but it never happened.

So what if he could get WMD in ten years time? We know North Korea, with another mad pot dictator already HAS them, so why was Iraq so high on the agenda list?

[Dieval]

Quote by: Pooeypants Question being then, why didn't the US finish the job back in 1991? Loads of Iraqi rebels were expecting Saddam to be ousted but it never happened.

Good question.. IMO they should have finished the job in '91. My understanding is that Bush sr. followed the UN resolution at the time - to liberate Kuwait and not remove Saddam from power.

Quote by: Pooeypants So what if he could get WMD in ten years time? We know North Korea, with another mad pot dictator already HAS them, so why was Iraq so high on the agenda list?

Iraq has been a thorn in our side for over 13 years nows. My understanding is that although we've never had a great relationship with NK since the war, yet they just recently acquired/constructed Nuclear weapons and became a bigger threat than they had been... We can not, however, apply the same war stategy we used with Iraq to NK - millions would likely die. We are doing everything we can to negotiate with them - the 5(or is it 6?) way talks - Russia, China, Japan, etc...

[RickSp]

Quote by: Dieval There were also other points outlined in Deulfers reports where we have found weapons and related programs that were CLEARLY in violation of UN resolutions. They've also found his intent was clear. Lift the sanctions then restart WMD programs... Not dealing with him now just postpones the inevitable. Had we waited another 10 years, with the sanctions possibly lifted, he could have had REAL WMD's and been able to inflict massive casualties to our troops..would that have been a better option?

Grasping at straws here? Duelfer is under incredible pressure to find something, anything, and fails, so he starts trying to read the dictator's mind. His intent was clear? Was it?

Of course Saddam had the opportunity to use WMD against US troops in the Gulf War and he didn't use them. He had the weapons available but chose not to use them, understanding that the US retaliation would be devasting. Saddam might be evil but at least in this case, he wasn't stupid.

You suggest that if we hadn't gone to war Saddam might have been a threat in ten years? That is assuming that he also acquired the means to deliver the weapons and that he wasn't stopped again by the world community in the mean time. We could have avoided this disasterous war, not spent hundreds of billions and thousands of lives and had a whole decade to find diplomatic solutions to contain his regime. This is your worst case option? Doesn't sound so horrible to me.

I guess you still aren't bothered by the irony that when Saddam had WMD, we supported him and when it was reasonably well established that he didn't, we invaded.

[RickSp]

Question being then, why didn't the US finish the job back in 1991? Loads of Iraqi rebels were expecting Saddam to be ousted but it never happened.

Bush's daddy got it right. The United States is "an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land." We have achieved the "dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome" that George I predicted.

Excerpt from "Why We Didn't Remove Saddam" by George Bush [Sr.] and Brent Scowcroft, Time (2 March 1998): While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome. I've been told that the same passage appears on page 489 of Bush and Scowcroft's book, A World Transformed (Alfred A. Knopf, 1998). (Emphasis added.)

[Dieval]

Quote by: RickSp Grasping at straws here? Duelfer is under incredible pressure to find something, anything, and fails, so he starts trying to read the dictator's mind. His intent was clear? Was it?

Yes, it was clear.

Quote by: RickSp Of course Saddam had the opportunity to use WMD against US troops in the Gulf War and he didn't use them. He had the weapons available but chose not to use them, understanding that the US retaliation would be devasting. Saddam might be evil but at least in this case, he wasn't stupid.

And your point here is what? He didn't use them first, which was smart. That doesn't discount the fact he believed they were a proven weapon and gave him power.

Quote by: RickSp You suggest that if we hadn't gone to war Saddam might have been a threat in ten years? That is assuming that he also acquired the means to deliver the weapons and that he

He was already working on plans for missiles to reach overk 1000km as wells as working missles that exceeded the range set by the UN resolutions..

Quote by: RickSp wasn't stopped again by the world community in the mean time.

Would it have taken another Kuwait annexation for the world to take action against him?

Quote by: RickSp We could have avoided this disasterous war, not spent hundreds of billions and thousands of lives and had a whole decade to find diplomatic solutions to contain his regime.

Containment is not a solution, nor was it working as intended. Saddam had basically removed the financial impact from the sanctions and had a clandestine network used to acquire banned technology, yet the UN knew nothing about this.

Quote by: RickSp This is your worst case option? Doesn't sound so horrible to me.

Facing real WMD's in the future doesn't sound so horrible to you?

Quote by: RickSp I guess you still aren't bothered by the irony that when Saddam had WMD, we supported him and when it was reasonably well established that he didn't, we invaded.

There were bigger threats than him, at the time.

Who's up for another round of beating this topic to death??

[Zeebadee]

The Bush apologists are simply unbelieveable. When one rationale for Bush's war is proven to be a lie, they just make up another one. Now it's down to saddam's own fault for the invasion! He fooled us into thinking he had WMD's so we would have to invade! The fact that this makes absolutely no sense doesn't seem to bother them at all.

[RickSp]

Containment and deterence worked with the Soviet Union. Lots of WMD, lots of delivery systems, huge army. Deterence even worked with Saddam. He knew he couldn't use his weapons against us in the Gulf War because he understood the consequences..

We have all lived in the shadow of nuclear destruction for the last half century . The best way of dealing with it is through negotiation and diplomacy, not war. The war in Iraq was completely unnecessary and now our soldiers, the people of Iraq and the taxpayers are paying the price.

[RickSp]

From the BOROWITZ REPORT

BUSH ACCUSES SADDAM OF TELLING TRUTH Evildoer Knowingly Came Clean on WMD’s, President Charges Just hours after confirming that the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was over, President George W. Bush leveled his harshest charge ever at Saddam Hussein, accusing the former Iraqi dictator of “knowingly telling the truth” about not possessing WMD in the months leading up to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. “After years of lying about his weapons, Saddam Hussein willfully decided to tell the truth about them,” Mr. Bush said. “His treachery knows no bounds.” After Mr. Bush excoriated Saddam for his “wanton truth-telling,” he added that “thanks to the work of our coalition, Mr. Saddam Hussein will never be free to tell the truth again.” Mr. Bush argued that even though the stated reason for invading Iraq no longer applied, preventing the former Iraqi strongman from telling the truth in the future was “reason enough” to go to war. “In the wrong hands, the truth can destabilize regions and even destroy entire civilizations,” Mr. Bush said. “In that respect, the truth itself is a weapon of mass destruction – one that Mr. Saddam Hussein will never be able to use again.”

[bishop]

Quote by: Zeebadee The Bush apologists are simply unbelieveable. When one rationale for Bush's war is proven to be a lie, they just make up another one. Now it's down to saddam's own fault for the invasion! He fooled us into thinking he had WMD's so we would have to invade! The fact that this makes absolutely no sense doesn't seem to bother them at all.

no doubt about that. there isn't even much point in stating the obvious, because they will simply discount it and revert back to their hatched up theories about what woulda, coulda, shoulda.. the denial over what has transpired these past couple years is just amazing. it may sound like a load of shit, smell like a load of shit, even look like a load of shit - but somehow it isn't!

dieval, you should just switch over to rainbow's rational. at least he/she seems to readily admit (and accept) the fact that wmd's were just a charade for invading iraq.

[rmnunez]

Rick

Of course Saddam had the opportunity to use WMD against US troops in the Gulf War and he didn't use them. He had the weapons available but chose not to use them, understanding that the US retaliation would be devasting. Saddam might be evil but at least in this case, he wasn't stupid.

Yet it was reported some WMD scuds were launched at both Israel and US camps and I've heard it suggested symptoms of the "Gulf War Syndrome" bear a remarkable similarity to WMD use. Did they all get destroyed, became 'stale', have been accounted for? It makes no difference if Saddam was fearful enough to keep him from using WMDs, we know he wasn't when he used them before.

It doesn't make sense to accept that Saddam was going to get WMDs in the future, but figure that then the international community would handle it. Militarily intervening to forcibly disarm a state with WMDs requires some je sais quoi only gringoes can bring to bear and project universally, so ultimately the US would have to invade the place later, with greater risk (but with a nice pat on the back from this international community).

Dieval is right

Containment is not a solution, nor was it working as intended. Saddam had basically removed the financial impact from the sanctions and had a clandestine network used to acquire banned technology...

Containment is an effective approach when one deals with rational actors, Saddam wasn't one of these. Negotiation and diplomacy don't work as well when your dealing with unaccountable tyrants. The mechanisms of economic sanctions and trade embargoes work well on regimes which are more responsive to their citizenry's plight than Saddam's was. I think the UN knew something about what was really going on. Additionally, due to the wealth generated through oil exports, Saddam's regime had enough capital to flaunt the restrictions and proceed with whatever pursuits. Given the abundance of apparently "false leads" relating to Saddam's WMD pursuits, it sure seems like he did plant some suspicions.

[RickSp]

Quote by: rmnunez Rick It makes no difference if Saddam was fearful enough to keep him from using WMDs, we know he wasn't when he used them before.

I read that sentence several times. Are you serious? Saddam knew enough not to use WMD on the US and when he did use WMD on Iranian troops and Kurdish villages who got in the way, the US supplied him with the aircraft to drop the bombs. And your point is?

Quote by: rmnunez It doesn't make sense to accept that Saddam was going to get WMDs in the future, but figure that then the international community would handle it. Militarily intervening to forcibly disarm a state with WMDs requires some je sais quoi only gringoes can bring to bear and project universally, so ultimately the US would have to invade the place later, with greater risk (but with a nice pat on the back from this international community).

You neocons want it both ways. You justify a war because Saddam had WMD and now you justify it because he doesn't? What nonsense. You demonize Saddam, calling him irrational, so containment won't work, which is just more rationalization to justify war.

Bottom line the neocon policy of "pre-emptive war" is cowardly. It the policy of a bullying the weak. You call Saddam an irrational tyrant so anything is justified. Containment worked just fine with Stalin, another irrational tyrant, because "pre-emption" would have meant World War and nuclear suicide. The Iraq war, the glorious cakewalk, was little more than naked agression and all the rationalizations change that not one iota..

[Morpheus]

It doesn't matter whether Iraq had WMDs, the war would have been wrong even if he had them. The US has thousands of nuclear weapons, more than any other country in the world, and has used them. It's the height of hypocrisy to invade Iraq over it while leaving the US (and UK, France, etc.) untouched. Following that logic the US should be invaded for refusal to give up its WMDs.

[rmnunez]

Morpheus, not all nations are endowed with the same rights, some have yielded their right to possess or even pursue WMDs, the US and at least the other 4 Security Council members have not formally ceded their rights to such weapons, the rest of the world has agreed through many international conventions and treaties to neither hold, seek or use WMDs. Most of the world sensibly agrees WMDs should not be held, acquired or sought and sees such as a threat to international peace and security.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: rmnunez Most of the world sensibly agrees WMDs should not be held, acquired or sought and sees such as a threat to international peace and security.

Yeah, except for the nuclear bomber, USA. And a few "close friends."

[bishop]

Containment is an effective approach when one deals with rational actors, Saddam wasn't one of these. Negotiation and diplomacy don't work as well when your dealing with unaccountable tyrants.

could you explain, exactly, how saddam wasn't rational?

he did submit himself to extremely intrusive inspections, didn't he? seems like he was willing to be held accountable.

HOW ABOUT HOLDING THE PEOPLE WHO MADE WMD'S THE BASIS FOR INVASION ACCOUNTABLE???

these goddamn teflon tyrants that they are.

[Dieval]

Quote by: Zeebadee The Bush apologists are simply unbelieveable. When one rationale for Bush's war is proven to be a lie, they just make up another one. Now it's down to saddam's own fault for the invasion! He fooled us into thinking he had WMD's so we would have to invade! The fact that this makes absolutely no sense doesn't seem to bother them at all.

There was no lie. A lie is when you intentionally mislead people and as much as you would like to believe that Bush did that, he didn't.

Quote by: RickSp Containment and deterence worked with the Soviet Union. Lots of WMD, lots of delivery systems, huge army. Deterence even worked with Saddam. He knew he couldn't use his weapons against us in the Gulf War because he understood the consequences.. We have all lived in the shadow of nuclear destruction for the last half century . The best way of dealing with it is through negotiation and diplomacy, not war. The war in Iraq was completely unnecessary and now our soldiers, the people of Iraq and the taxpayers are paying the price.

MAD worked because we were dealing with fairly rational and sane people in the USSR. Saddam is neither rational nor sane.


As for there being no large stockpiles of WMD's, we should count that as a blessing that he didn't have them and that he didn't use them on our troops. Had he had and used them we could have had many many more casualties then we have now. Either way, who's not happy Saddam has been removed from power?

[The Dunedan]

Dieval:
Everyone is happy that Saddam is gone. However, we are NOT HAPPY about being lied to by this Administration. Whether Bush himself knowingly lied, or was lied to and lied to us in turn, is not important. The salient fact here is that over 1300 of our countrymen have died in a war that was predicated upon falsehoods.

And frankly, if the Iraqi people didn't have the wherewithal to get rid of Saddam themselves ( as the Iranians did with Reza Shah, who was almost as bad as Saddam ) then perhaps they didn't need our help to begin with. I don't mean to sound heartless, but the simple fact is that any tyrannical Gov't is easily enough overthrown by a large enough body of the Citizenry. It is also a plain-and-simple fact that Saddam's brutality ( detestable as it was ) was the only thing which prevented Iraq from deteriorating into a three-way genocide, with two of the three combatants forming their own little Islamic Republics.

[bishop]

It is also a plain-and-simple fact that Saddam's brutality ( detestable as it was ) was the only thing which prevented Iraq from deteriorating into a three-way genocide, with two of the three combatants forming their own little Islamic Republics.

i've wondered about this.. do you think that the neocons could've wanted to see iraq disintegrate into three, or to descend into civil war?

my first assumption is that they didn't, and that they stupidly thought that they'd greet us as heros. but you never know. they (the neocons) are a smart and devious group after all.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: The Dunedan Dieval: And frankly, if the Iraqi people didn't have the wherewithal to get rid of Saddam themselves ( as the Iranians did with Reza Shah, who was almost as bad as Saddam ) then perhaps they didn't need our help to begin with.

This is exactly on point. We've had uncountable suicide bombers targeting U.S. troops and Iraqi collaborators, yet not a single one ever targeted saddam before the invasion, in spite of his frequent appearances out in public for photo opps. How unpopular could this guy have been if the "liberators" are prime targets, and the despot isn't?? The Bush apologists have no answer for this question.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Dieval There was no lie. A lie is when you intentionally mislead people and as much as you would like to believe that Bush did that, he didn't.

So he didn't lie but those nasty men at the Intelligence services did, right?