A case that Iraq still had wmd in 2003

[jimbarry 0]

Follow this line of thought, and help me poke holes in it, if we can:

- Without dispute, Iraq had WMD and production programs in the late 1980s. Ask the Kurds.

- At the end of Gulf I, SH agreed to destroy his wmd, his production programs, his aspirations for more, and allow the UN unhindered access to verify it all; knowing that military force was a consequence of last resort.

- Through the 12 years between 1991 and 2003, SH threw any roadblock and hurdle he could in the way of the UN inspectors in their verification mission.

- Even on the verge of the 2003 invasion, SH refused (or made half-hearted illusions) to abide by his agreement to allow verification.

- SH's history shows that he took power by any means necessary and he kept power through recent decades by any means necessary, fighting or killing all enemies, foreign and domestic, and he showed no signs of simply giving it up through 2003.

- SH knew that the only way to stop the invasion would be to prove that wmd and production programs were gone. He didn't.

- Why hinder the inspectors and risk losing his power if he really didn't have wmd anymore and could prove it???

- After all this, the world would be naive if we didn't conclude that he still had wmd.

So, I conclude that, of course he still had them. All evidence (short of seeing warehouses full of them) points to 'yes', and no evidence points to 'no'.

- But let's play with the 'take' that SH really didn't have wmd anymore in 2003, but simply chose not to convince the UN of this as not to appear vulnerable to his neighbors. Then I'd say that if you rob a bank with a finger in your jacket pocket, you've still used a "weapon" to threaten your neighbors, and you're still a bank robber.

- But there's nothing in SH's history that leads anyone to believe that he would lower himself to outsiders and get rid of weapons he felt he should have.

So, even without satellite photos, I can't see anything in the above that convinces me that Iraq in 2003 was weapons-free.

Again, SH brought this war on himself. We told him 13 years ago exactly how to avoid this war, and he specifically chose the path which led to it.

[mr2mk1g 10]

I have no idea if SH had WMD or not. I do have some simple and compelling answers to the questions you pose and on which you base your conclusion.

You ask: “Why hinder the inspectors and risk losing his power if he really didn't have wmd anymore and could prove it???”

This was widely discussed the time. No one expected he would. He was the leader of a sovereign country, one run through tyranny. Bowing to a foreign power would have discredited him so badly in the eyes of his people he had to take the risk he did.

He just couldn’t risk losing face like that. Last time he lost face was in 91 - he nearly lost power then. Not to us but to his own rebelling people; empowered by his percieved weakness.

Even if you take away that logic you are still left with a man who ruled for himself not for his country. Sod what happens to his country – he was sat there thinking “I will NOT be dictated to” and damn the consequences

On top of that you have to consider that he really didn’t think we’d invade. He’d been in the situation many times before and felt that he was going to see exactly what he'd seen before. A few more air strikes, some sanctions, bla bla bla – nothing that actually hurt him – only his people.

He could sit there and defi the threats, becuase that's all he thought they were. At the very last minute when he realised troops really were going in, we did see reports that he suddenly backed down... but only in a half hearted manner. Again he was gambling he could do the minimum to avoid being deposed and still have a hope of not loosing face before his people. He was trying to back down and still remain defiant. By then it was too late.

Again, this doesn't mean there were not WMD in Iraq, just that I do not buy your explanation of why there were.

[mccurley 1]

I don't know if he had them, I'm sure he wanted them.
Why didn't he back down and prove he didn't have them??
Don't know and don't care. He needed to be removed before he did get brave enough to aquire and use the weapons.
Again, Why didn't he back down??
Why didn't Hitler back down when the Russians where knocking at his door and the rest of his country was under the boots of his other enemies.
Because the human mind is capable of some very strange things.
Saddam Hussain AKA Goddamn Insane!!

Watch my video Fat Women
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRWkEky8GoI

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"Again, Why didn't he back down??"
Because he was fond of brinksmanship games, he showed the world that, back in Gulf War part 1.
No denying he was a very bad boy, but there are worse people than him around, and toppling unpleasant regimes sets a pretty dangerous precedent.

Tauranga, its nice there isn't it...
I have very pleasant memories of cool beer on a terrace overlooking the bay towards Mt Manganui.

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

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 620]

There is substantial evidence to show that while Saddam was supplied with WMD from the west (UK & USA primarily) he was supplied with the finished product and not the production facilities. This means that while he possessed Anthrax (supplied by the US) it had a 3 to 5 year shelf life - and hence while 10 000 litres was an-accounted for - it was just harmless goo by 2003. Source for this was Robin Cook's biography (Point of Departure)

I believe that Saddam had the intent to build WMD but not the capability YET. Again following the other replies I believe it was a bluff - and we also tend to think that everyone thinks like a westerner and they don't. I believe it was a bluff that went wrong/backfired. However we should not forget that the reason that the US/UK supplied him with WMD was a defence against Iran - who no doubt he was still scared of and needed to bluff them.

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

[Ron 10]

Lets not forget that several countries thought he had them...

And a list of Dems favorite folks:

Quote

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country" --Gore, September 23,2003

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."--Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime...now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued decit and his consistant grasp for weapons of mass destruction...So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real" --John F. Kerry, Jan 23, 2003.

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

[jimbarry 0]

Quote

No denying he was a very bad boy, but there are worse people than him around, and toppling unpleasant regimes sets a pretty dangerous precedent.

I never said, nor do I believe we toppled this regime because it was unpleasant and he was a bad boy. I'm trying to refocus on the fact that SH knew that if he didn't allow the UN to verify the destruction of his wmd, that we could respond with military force.

It was up to him to prove they were gone, not up to us to prove they were still there. SH led us on the path to war when he could have chosen peace.

[billvon 3,120]

>So, I conclude that, of course he still had them. All evidence (short
> of seeing warehouses full of them) points to 'yes', and no evidence
> points to 'no'.

He was invaded in 2003. He was a madman who thought he could actually win. Yet he didn't use any WMD's. That suggests he didn't have any to use.

Imagine that a man who is suspected of having a gun (because he was given one by the police in 1980) is approached by a cop. They chase him; he doesn't pull a gun on them. They corner him; no gun is seen. They take him down and search him; no gun is found. Is it reasonable to assume that he had one when they approached him?

[jimbarry 0]

Quote

Imagine that a man who is suspected of having a gun (because he was given one by the police in 1980) is approached by a cop. They chase him; he doesn't pull a gun on them. They corner him; no gun is seen. They take him down and search him; no gun is found. Is it reasonable to assume that he had one when they approached him?

Good. Let's go with this.

The police gave him a gun in 1980. Later that decade, he uses that same gun to kill some despised cousins of his who live up north. He uses a knife to invade his neighbor's house in 1990. In 1991, the cops eject him from the house, destroy his knife, and make an agreement that he'll turn in his gun or allow the verification of its destruction. For 12 years he offers no proof or cooperation to show the gun is gone. He lets gang members stay at his house and remains involved in criminal activity, killing family members and threatening more neighbors.

In 2003 the man is approached by a cop. They chase him; he doesn't pull a gun on them. They corner him; no gun is seen. They take him down and search him; no gun is found. Is it reasonable to assume that he had one when they approached him?

The answer is 'yes', only because it's a heck of a lot more reasonable to assume he has it than it is reasonable to assume that he hasn't. Especially when it wasn't up to the cops to prove he had the gun before taking him down. It was up to him to turn the gun in, knowing that he wouldn't get taken down if he had just lived up to his agreement. He gambled that the cops would just forget about him.

But then, are you saying that the take down was the cops' fault?

[jimbarry 0]

Quote

He was invaded in 2003. He was a madman who thought he could actually win. Yet he didn't use any WMD's. That suggests he didn't have any to use.

Good one. I'll concede that this is one for the "SH might not have had wmd in 2003" column. I still think though that the "did have wmd" column is still much heavier. Again, it wasn't up to us to prove. It was up to him to prove.

[jimbarry 0]

So if I'm reading you right, you're agreeing with me that SH defied the UN in order to remain strong and in power at home. (that was one of my points above too)

Then this points to him still having the wmd in 2003. I mean, why should SH get rid of all the weapons he had, but create an illusion to the world that he still had them by faking defiance of the UN resolutions to disarm.

Both your case and mine are in the end unprovable and mostly circumstantial, but since your *only* points seems to be he defied the UN to remain strong at home, and that he never believed anyone would invade, I can't yet conclude you've poked any holes in my case above.

And that's what Bush had in 2003. Couldn't prove they were there, and couldn't prove they weren't there. But of the evidence there was, and the actions of SH which telegraphed the truth underneath, the case of "has wmd/doesn't have wmd" seems to be 1000 to 1.

So, in the end you agreed with two of my points, ignored the rest, and you still can say you don't agree with my conclusion? At all?

[jimbarry 0]

Quote

And a list of Dems favorite folks

While I'm on your side of this Ron, I just wanted to see if I could build a case that removed the words of american politicians from the mix. I've seen these threads--adding these quotes convinces no one on either side and always leads into a dead-end.

I wanted to spell out the case which refocuses on the main issue: SH had wmd at some point, he didn't prove he got rid of them, therefore he deserved an invasion because he knew 12 years before that it was the last option on the table if he didn't allow verification.

So many people say (and I'm tired of hearing) "Bush said there were wmd. There weren't. He lied to us, and 1000 americans are dead because of it." Bah-loney. Doesn't matter what Bush said. SH violated legal UN resolutions which included military invasion as last-resort consequences of non-compliance. That's really what this all boils down to. Everything else, while important, is secondary.

[jimbarry 0]

Quote

it had a 3 to 5 year shelf life...harmless goo by 2003.

Not all of his wmd had this shelf life. Is there evidence anywhere that says that all of the wmd we all knew he had at one point was all completely inert in 2003.

Quote

I believe it was a bluff...that went wrong/backfired.

I'll concede that's another for the "might not have had them" column. Except he was smart enough to find a way to verify his wmd destruction secretly. In a way that convinces the UN to leave him alone and still convinces his enemies he might still have them. Maybe he wasn't that smart. Or probably he still had them.

Quote

However we should not forget that the reason that the US/UK supplied him with WMD was a defence against Iran - who no doubt he was still scared of and needed to bluff them.

Then what you might be saying we did was setup a catch-22 for him that would inevitably lead to regime change. Arguable. Sort of like the consipiracy crowd who believe that the US secretly told April Glaspie to give SH the green light to invade Kuwait, setting him up in a double-cross for us to build a fearful arab coalition and destroy his military. C'mon, did SH really think the saudi's would just stand back and not call for help when his army rolled in kuwait?

[mr2mk1g 10]

Eugh… I’m saying that just because he did X and Y does not necessarily mean he was definitely motivated by the fact that he had WMD. There are OTHER possible reasons for his actions.

Your argument is A possible reason, but not the ONLY possible reason for his actions. As such it cannot be proffered as absolute PROOF of your argument. This is the only flaw in your reasoning, and that is all I was saying.

For example:

Quote

So if I'm reading you right, you're agreeing with me that SH defied the UN in order to remain strong and in power at home. (that was one of my points above too)

Then this points to him still having the wmd in 2003.

Possibly, but not necessarily. That would be ONE possible reason. But it is also perfectly possible that he defied the UN to remain strong and in power at home because to bow to the UN would cause his people to topple him. Another possible reason for defying the UN was because he liked to play that game. Another possible reason was that he felt he was not going to be dictated to by anyone.

These are all POSSIBLE reasons. You can't say that your reasoning points to anything because we are far from sure that your reasoning is correct - there are many others to chose from, all equally compelling if not more so.

[nigel99 620]

Quote

Then what you might be saying we did was setup a catch-22 for him

my post wasn't very coherent - what I was alluding to is that is really pisses me off all the outcry of Saddam had WMD - like that in itself was a crime - of course he had them, because WE supplied them to him, actually WE also have WMD... rant is not aimed at you...

Again WMD definition seems to growing over time to include anything that goes bang and kills people - and the scope increase to include capabilities to produce WMD is very dangerous. Just because you have the raw ingredients does NOT mean you have the means. It scares me to see the precident that this can set - raw materials in Iraq + western scientists knowledge of what can be done with them does not = WMD.

As to your first point as to was it all inert by 2003 - I don't know and I doubt that all WMD have shelf lives that are less than 10 to 20 years - so by implication he probably had some. The really troubling thing though is how did so many people get it wrong? Hanz Blix, David Kay are top names that have conceded that they are puzzled by how little there is to be found. Perhaps it is not WMD that is the question in the middle east but us westerners not understanding what makes their minds tick? If we are so easily duped/mislead how can we ever win the peace?

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

[Ron 10]

Quote

While I'm on your side of this Ron, I just wanted to see if I could build a case that removed the words of american politicians from the mix. I've seen these threads--adding these quotes convinces no one on either side and always leads into a dead-end.

My only point for showing those quotes is that EVERYONE thought he had WMD's. So to blame Bush alone is wrong. Two branches of our Government wanted to use force, including both the last two Democratic Presidental canidates. The UN voted to use force.

He did indead have WMD's. It was his job to prove he didn't have them according to the UN resolution...He did not do that.

Clintons and in an even larger part the UN are responsible for this situation. They let it grow, they allowed SH to run around hiding the truth.

SH was in violation....Both the UN and the US voted to use force....Don't blame the President for actually doing what everyone voted for.


(Not you, but to the others)

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

[pajarito 0]

Quote

He was invaded in 2003. He was a madman who thought he could actually win. Yet he didn't use any WMD's. That suggests he didn't have any to use.

Imagine that a man who is suspected of having a gun (because he was given one by the police in 1980) is approached by a cop. They chase him; he doesn't pull a gun on them. They corner him; no gun is seen. They take him down and search him; no gun is found. Is it reasonable to assume that he had one when they approached him?

Or, he didn't use them because it would hurt the US more if he didn't and we couldn't find them. NBC weapons were but one classification of weapons in his arsenal. Unlike the very simplified example above that you’re trying to compare. Saddam isn't stupid. You're doing just what he'd like for you to do. Portray him as the victim.

[jimbarry 0]

Quote

Your argument is A possible reason, but not the ONLY possible reason for his actions. As such it cannot be proffered as absolute PROOF of your argument. This is the only flaw in your reasoning, and that is all I was saying.

The title of my post was "A case...", not "The case...". My original post doesn't use the word "proof", nor does it say "only". Nor were these my intentions, because that would be next to impossible to do.

Quote

You can't say that your reasoning points to anything because we are far from sure that your reasoning is correct

The intent of my post wasn't to find people who can prove he had them or prove he didn't. Since it doesn't appear to be possible to find such a proof either way, and other threads on this board sling a lot of mud pretending that they can, my intent was to present a case that asserts what was most likely...

...and to lay the blame for this war on SH and no one else.

Quote

there are many others to chose from, all equally compelling if not more so.

As I said originally, it was an invitation for others to poke holes in my line of reasoning if they can; not just say "you're reasons are flawed" (how?) or "there are other reasons" (which?).

Unlike many others out here (i'm not saying you personally), my mind is open because I'll never have all the answers. To continue learning, questioning, and discussing is my civic duty as an american. "The stiff and inflexible is the disciple of death." -TTC 76

But, this thread here will probably die soon, because it's no fun to argue unless one can find someone to take up an absolute position. When in reality we often have to make decisions in life based on what's most likely. For some reason you applied onto me an absolute position and argued with that phantom instead of discussing the topic at hand.

[mr2mk1g 10]

I have addressed the issue raised. I've pointed out that whilst you are quite welcome to conclude whatever you like, I think you have come to that conclusion not through flawed logic, but by virtue of some quite fatally flawed premises.