U.S. Weapons Inspector: Iraq Had No WMD

[quade 4]

Ok, so let's leave the world of memos and the Vietnam war and let's talk a bit about more recent events.

U.S. Weapons Inspector: Iraq Had No WMD

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040917/D8553BJG0.html

I believe that the war in Iraq has turned out to be -THE- biggest blunder the US has ever made. Period.

I don't care if GWB says what he means and means what he says.

What concerns me more is if what he says is actually correct. What concerns me more is if he's leading us in the correct direction to keep the US safer. What concerns me more is the folly of spending billions of dollars fighting a war that need not have been fought. What concerns me more is sending our troops into harms way over "bad intel".

Is he a leader because he leads or is he a leader simply because he was installed?

Can we really afford four more years?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Ok, so let's leave the world of memos and the Vietnam war and let's talk a bit about more recent events.

U.S. Weapons Inspector: Iraq Had No WMD

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040917/D8553BJG0.html

I believe that the war in Iraq has turned out to be -THE- biggest blunder the US has ever made. Period.

I don't care if GWB says what he means and means what he says.

What concerns me more is if what he says is actually correct. What concerns me more is if he's leading us in the correct direction to keep the US safer. What concerns me more is the folly of spending billions of dollars fighting a war that need not have been fought. What concerns me more is sending our troops into harms way over "bad intel".

Is he a leader because he leads or is he a leader simply because he was installed?

Can we really afford four more years?

Do you need to be constantly reminded that Kerry voted for the war? I think it is a sad day when politicians who agreed with GWB that Iraq had WMDs are now running away like a bunch of pussies now that the itel which they also agreed with at the time was wrong. Do you honestly think Gore would not have done the same thing?

[ahegeman 0]

A bigger blunder than Vietnam? No shit?

I'd like to hear from some of the anti-Iraq war folks here what they think we should have done with Iraq instead of invading. "Nothing" is not a realistic answer as we have been heavily involved with Iraq since the first Gulf War, what with the embargo, the no-fly zones, etc.

I hear complaints about the cost of the war, but how many billions would we have spent maintaining the embargo, keeping our troops in Saudi Arabia, and enforcing the no-fly-zones for another 12 years? I hear complaints about how we are killing innocent Iraqis, but the UN estimates that over 1M Iraqis died from malnutrition, dirty water, and disease during the embargo. I hear that we are encouraging terrorists, but Osama said one of his main complaints about the US was the very presence of our troops in Saudi Arabia. With Saddam gone, we don't need them there any longer.

Or should we have dropped the embargo and pulled our troops out of the region? Do you really believe Saddam would have kept behaving himself? Or would he have simply fired up those "dormant programs he hoped to revive" and got back to work? Would it have been OK with you for us to invade then, after his military had rebuilt and even more US soldiers would have had to die?

So what do you think? Say we didn't fight the war. Should we have maintained the embargo or not?

---------------------------------------------------------------
There is a fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness'.
--Dave Barry

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

I believe that the war in Iraq has turned out to be -THE- biggest blunder the US has ever made. Period.

It's way to early to reasonably draw that conclusion.

. . =(_8^(1)

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"It's way to early to reasonably draw that conclusion."

Yeah, you've got at least another 4 years of this shit before you can honestly say it was a bad move.

But now we (the coalition) are in, we have to stick it out. Anybody who says anything different is in cloud cuckoo land.
It was wrong to go in without he support of the UN security council, no point crying over spilt milk now, but someone has to take responsibility for this almighty fuckup, and that person is Dubbya.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[nigel99 558]

Quote

I'd like to hear from some of the anti-Iraq war folks here what they think we should have done with Iraq instead of invading. "Nothing" is not a realistic answer as we have been heavily involved with Iraq since the first Gulf War, what with the embargo, the no-fly zones, etc.

I have heard very few people advocating doing nothing. If the US & UK had stayed within the framework provided by the UN then we would still have had a war - BUT it would have been a year later. More importantly there would have been legal and instead of wasting time and energy trying to trip each other up at every turn Europe & the US would be helping each other. Also the Iraqi's would not feel that the USA is "empire building" and hence I believe that internal resistance would be less - hell - the USA can't even convince most of western europe and its own people that it's motives are pure.

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[Zenister 0]

exactly. He was no threat where he was as he was. Iraq had been and continued to be contained..

but then your not likely to gain any 'glory' for being the president who 'waited them out' are you? even if it was the best course of action...

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I have heard very few people advocating doing nothing. If the US & UK had stayed within the framework provided by the UN then we would still have had a war - BUT it would have been a year later. More importantly there would have been legal and instead of wasting time and energy trying to trip each other up at every turn Europe & the US would be helping each other. Also the Iraqi's would not feel that the USA is "empire building" and hence I believe that internal resistance would be less - hell - the USA can't even convince most of western europe and its own people that it's motives are pure.

Wars aren't legal or illegal. They just are. This one had a lot more good 'cause' behind it then most. The Iraqis don't get to whine about loss of independence - they were the losing side in a war and surrendered. If they have problems with that, they can talk to their leader. Oh right, he shoots people for that sort of thing.

France and Russia would never have been on board, so there would never have been a successful vote from the Security Council.

Quade- the report was rather specific in the conclusion that while the programs were dormant, that SH intended to renew them as soon as international attention faded. To that I say a big fucking "DUH!" So sticking to the 'Let the UN inspections work' bullshit would have achieved nothing.

[nigel99 558]

Kofi Annan as head of the UN has publicly stated that this war was "illegal". http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3661134.stm

We are not talking about the opinion of an international law expert here ( I know that there is debate amongst them) - but about the person whose job it is to maintain the organisation. A person in his position will not & should not make these kind of statements without a substantial amount of evidence.

edited to add...

France & Russia would most certainly have co-operated had inspections been given more time. If you read the transcipts of the time or most political biographies there is a general concencus on this.

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[Ron 10]

Do you forget that Kerry, and most of congress voted to go to war?

The UN voted to use force?

I find it quite funny that you want to blame Bush.... TWO branches of our Government gave the OK, not just Bush.

SH was in vilolation of the Resolutions. He had been for 12+ years.

The UN should have handled it, but they didn't.

Get a new line to use against Bush....Kerry voted for war also.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 10]

Quote

It was wrong to go in without he support of the UN security council

The UN showed itself to be a pussy. They gave a date, and then did nothing when it passed.

Quote

someone has to take responsibility for this almighty fuckup, and that person is Dubbya

And Kerry, and the rest of Congress WHO VOTED TO USE FORCE.

TWO branches of our government said go....Congress could have said no. Kerry's vote will haunt him.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Jib 0]

Quote

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040917/D8553BJG0.html

20/20 hindsight for you, Kerry and everyone else.

Quote

What concerns me more is sending our troops into harms way over "bad intel".

Quote

there are signs the fallen Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had dormant programs he hoped to revive at a later time, according to people familiar with the findings.

Your article doesn't say there wasn't the capacity and while that capacity may have been "small" (whatever that means), it doesn't take a who helluva a lot of the stuff to cause a problem.

--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt

[nigel99 558]

***there are signs the fallen Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had dormant programs he hoped to revive at a later time


It is really funny we have moved from

A) Saddam had WMD
followed by
B) Saddam did not have WMD but had PROGRAMS
followed by the latest report
C) Saddam had the INTENT to revive DORMANT programs.

It seems that there is a significant amount of back-peddling going on.

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[Ron 10]

Quote

He was no threat where he was as he was. Iraq had been and continued to be contained..

After 9/11 we suddenly realized we were able to be attacked. We became afraid. The security failures showed us how easy it would be for an NBC attack to be carried out on us.

So we went looking for someone that HAD WMD's and hated us. The most clear answer was SH.

He hated America. He said it all the time.

One time had WMD's. Hell we sold him some, and he had been buying things needed to build more.

He supported Terrorism. He was giving 25,000 to the families of suicide bombers.

Add 1,2, and 3 together and you have a guy that hates us with possible WMD's that would gladly use them on us or more likely give or sell them to someone to use against us.

Add the fact that he ignored the UN resolution for 12 years....

And the logical conclusion is that we needed to know what he had, and what he did with what he had.

He was not giving us that info, and was in violation.

The UN, and the American Congress voted to use force.

Quote

but then your not likely to gain any 'glory' for being the president who 'waited them out' are you? even if it was the best course of action...

I disagree....If he had waited a year it would have been a better political move. It would have shown that he was able to work with the UN and the world to solve a problem. He would be riding the "War wave" at election time, and no one would be able to use the "1,000 dead Americans" against him.

Waiting would have been better politicaly..But in that year we might have had an NBC agent from Iraq used in an American city killing thousands.

Invading was the best choice at the time for the security of the country...It was not a good political move.

Now in hindsight everyone jumps on the "It was a bad move bandwaggon"...Including people like Kerry who voted FOR it.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 10]

Quote

France & Russia would most certainly have co-operated had inspections been given more time

Wrong..France was selling equipment t Iraq in violation of the embargo....They would not vote to end that cash cow.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[nigel99 558]

I am not sure that the financial argument holds up. To me it is as weak as the Bush for Oil argument.

Granted this is well into speculative territory but Joseph Wilson talks alot about that period in his book, and he was experienced in both US/French diplomacy and Iraq (granted not a leading expert) but far more knowledgeable than most.

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Kofi Annan as head of the UN has publicly stated that this war was "illegal". http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3661134.stm

Annan is the head of a fantasy organization that has no real standing. The easiest proof of this would be to see them try to pass a resolution declaring the war illegal. Guess who would veto that motion? The UN is owned by the winners of WWII.

Out in the real world, force remains the law of the jungle. The UN may occasionally help to broker a peace, but if it fails to do so, parties will settle it on their own. On that subject, what great successes can the UN claim credit for?

The inspections were given 12 years, so fuck the French.

[nigel99 558]

Ok genuine question here. How do you reconcile your viewpoint of the UN when both of our governments make as one of their central claims aside from WMD the "enforcement of UN resolutions"?

UN success stories...
http://www.clw.org/pub/clw/un/unsucess.html

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Ok genuine question here. How do you reconcile your viewpoint of the UN when both of our governments make as one of their central claims aside from WMD the "enforcement of UN resolutions"?

Propoganda for the sheep. The same could be said of the WMD claims themselves - they were a convenient means to an end.

I reconcile it by stating the obvious- when our attempts to use the broken resolutions as just cause failed, we went ahead without the UN. I suspect that marks the beginning of the end for the US bothering with the organization, esp if Bush wins as expected.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Waiting would have been better politicaly..But in that year we might have had an NBC agent from Iraq used in an American city killing thousands.

nope. i said it was a bad move then too, as did quite a number of military leaders, all were overridden by civilian officials. Your alarmist cry has been heard before, but the fact is he had no active NBC agents (they were all inert by that time, somewhere i have an unclassified DOD .ppt i'll post that specifically talks about lifespans and storage requirements) nor did he have the means to produce them.

He was absolutely contained, with no ability (as suspected by a great number of international expert who and has now been verified) to produce WMD and apparently (as we've yet to find anything significant) no existing WMD either. Invading at the time we did without greater world support was a bad move period. Waiting would have been more tedious but it would have also been much more effective.

If we'd waited we'd have had international support, another years worth of additional build up, intel and planning time, and the exact same security conditions for the US that we have now. In fact it would likely be better, we'd have less people who hate us. The only thing the war has done to increase security is give the terrorists a US target in their backyard. The 'bugzapper' theory of defense is a nice idea in theory, but it is a poor use of troops when your hands are tied by a political situation and an environment that creates more collateral civilian damage (in terms of lives and credibility) than it does effective attrition of your real enemy.

I agree he was absolutely in violation of the UN resolution, however we went to war without the UN and they have since condemned us for exactly that... "illegal" war etc... We are now in violation of the UN. i suppose Canada could attack and justify it by saying we were a known world aggressor who violated UN regulations and that would be ok with you??

politically GWB expected (based on his father's previous experience in Iraq) for this conflict in Iraq to be over and done with by the time he was up for reelection. He would then be riding the 'great savior' wave.... unfortunately he and his civilian advisors did not listen to the military experts who told him it would not be that easy at all, until it was obvious they were right...

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

What concerns me more is if what he says is actually correct. What concerns me more is if he's leading us in the correct direction to keep the US safer. What concerns me more is the folly of spending billions of dollars fighting a war that need not have been fought. What concerns me more is sending our troops into harms way over "bad intel".

Freakin' liberal values. Go hug a tree, hippy!

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Wars aren't legal or illegal. They just are.

Tell that to everyone convicted at Nuremburg.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Do you forget that Kerry, and most of congress voted to go to war?

Based on what the administration told them.

Quote

SH was in vilolation of the Resolutions. He had been for 12+ years.

That was not a good enough reason for invasion. I don't think it was, most of the US doesn't think it was, the UN didn't think it was, and hell, Bush obviously didn't think it was or he wouldn't have been touting it as being about an imminent threat and ties to terrorism.

[quade 4]

Quote

Do you need to be constantly reminded that Kerry voted for the war?

Are you -sure- you know what you're talking about and not just parroting the words?

Kerry, as well as others, voted to let GWB make the decision -- which is quite different.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[jdhill 0]

While I think this is old news, why not put the "No WMD" statement into context?

Quote

...Drafts of a report from the top U.S. inspector in Iraq conclude there were no weapons stockpiles, but say there are signs the fallen Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had dormant programs he hoped to revive at a later time...

While I agree that dormant programs would not have made a case for war, the pre war intel from multiple sources and countries pointed toward something different... couple that with SH playing shell games with the UN... it sure looked like he was hidding something, perhaps intentionally on SH's part... it must have looked that way for Kerry to have voted for it seeing the same information as everyone else, because he would not have made a mistake, right?

I don't disagree either on the war, or more acqurately the post-war, being a blunder in its execution, due to the lack of planning for the aftermath of taking out SH... And I agree that that is the administrations responsibility, specifically Rumsfeld's...

I don't believe that GWB lied, and I don't believe the war was the wrong thing to do... it was about 10 years late though.

Quote

Can we really afford four more years?

Maybe, maybe not... but I don't think Kerry brings anything to the table in this regard... to bad the Dem's could not have figured that out during the primaries.

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke