Where Are All The W.M.D.s?

McGentrix wrote:

It's amazing that so many governments in the world can be wrong about Saddam having WMD's, yet a minority of civilians can be right. It's a shame that 15 governments who voted unanimously that Saddam had WMD's (1441).

I think you're deliberately confusing the issue here. You yourself were much closer to target earlier on this thread, when you wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

Why is it that every country on the Security Council, including Syria, in the unanimous Resolution 1441, declared that Saddam had failed to account for the tons of chemical and biological agents he had in 1998?

There is a distinct difference between "vot[ing] unanimously that Saddam had WMD's" and "declar[ing] that Saddam had failed to account for the [WMD] he had". You can only be truthful in one of these two quotes.

This impacts the rest of your argument as well. There is a distinct difference between not having accounted for past WMD, and current possession of WMD. Iraq didnt prove conclusively to the weapon inspectors that they didnt have WMD anymore. The weapon inspectors didnt prove that Iraq did have WMD. That was the status quo earlier this year. The question then was: what should one do about that?

Most of those 15 governments you talk about, representing an overwhelming majority on the UN SC, took the position that since the WMD at the moment could neither be shown to still be there nor to not be there any longer, inspections should continue.

The US, not supported by most of those 15 governments, however, stated clearly that we couldnt afford to do that, because there was no time - the danger was too acute.

I'll quote President Bush at you again: "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised"; "we will set a course toward safety. Before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger will be removed."

Clear and present danger there was to the American "national security", and that was the reason he gave why he was bound, "by the oath he had sworn as Commander-in-Chief", "to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction".

Most of the other governments represented in the Security Council as well as in the UN overall, did not share this risk assessment, and thus disagreed with the use of force in question, with this second Gulf War. They had asked the Bush government to share this "intelligence" that would leave "no doubt" that Iraq at that very moment still posessed WMD, and what it shared with them was deemed wholly unconvincing. "We are of the generation that needs to be convinced and, mister Powell, we are not convinced", remember that from Joschka Fischer?

0 Replies

Yes. I found that session of the Security Council (in its entirety) painful, moving, and exhilirating...

0 Replies

nimh, McG is not good at identifying contradictions in others or in his own writings. Conclusion? It's a waste of time. c.i.

0 Replies

Amen.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
It's amazing that so many governments in the world can be wrong about Saddam having WMD's, yet a minority of civilians can be right. It's a shame that 15 governments who voted unanimously that Saddam had WMD's (1441).

I think you're deliberately confusing the issue here. You yourself were much closer to target earlier on this thread, when you wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
Why is it that every country on the Security Council, including Syria, in the unanimous Resolution 1441, declared that Saddam had failed to account for the tons of chemical and biological agents he had in 1998?

On 8 November 2002 the Security Council voted unanimously to adopt Resolution 1441 and thereby afford Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations."14 There had been doubt over the voting intentions of Syria, the sole Arab member of the Council, but it voted in favour.

In the Resolution, the Council deplored Iraq's failure to provide an accurate, full, final and complete disclosure of its WMD and prohibited missile programmes, as required under Resolution 687. It also deplored Iraq's repeated failure to cooperate fully and unconditionally with the inspection process and its decision in 1998 to cease all cooperation. Furthermore, the Council deplored Iraq's failure to comply with its obligations with regard to renouncing international terrorism, ending the repression of its civilian population, and cooperating in attempts to return or account for Kuwaiti and third country nationals detained during the invasion of Kuwait in 1990.

The Council went on to state that Iraq had been and remained in material breach of its obligations, and recognised that this, with Iraq's proliferation of WMD and ballistic missiles, posed a threat to international peace and security. It decided to give Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" and concluded by noting that it had repeatedly warned Iraq it would "face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations."

Now explain to me the differences between my 2 quotes.

nimh wrote:

There is a distinct difference between "vot[ing] unanimously that Saddam had WMD's" and "declar[ing] that Saddam had failed to account for the [WMD] he had". You can only be truthful in one of these two quotes.

This impacts the rest of your argument as well. There is a distinct difference between not having accounted for past WMD, and current possession of WMD. Iraq didnt prove conclusively to the weapon inspectors that they didnt have WMD anymore. The weapon inspectors didnt prove that Iraq did have WMD. That was the status quo earlier this year. The question then was: what should one do about that?

If it is known that they had weapons, and now can not account for those weapons, it would stand to reason that they still have them. It is a matter of perception. Some people seem to trust Saddam when he says he no longer has them, other people seem to trust Bush when he says they do. The weapons existed, that much is certain. That means they still exist somewhere. It really is that simple.

nimh wrote:

Most of those 15 governments you talk about, representing an overwhelming majority on the UN SC, took the position that since the WMD at the moment could neither be shown to still be there nor to not be there any longer, inspections should continue.

There are only 15 seats on the UNSC. I would hope that with Saddam's prior record that they would err on the side of caution.

nimh wrote:

The US, not supported by most of those 15 governments, however, stated clearly that we couldnt afford to do that, because there was no time - the danger was too acute.

I'll quote President Bush at you again: "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised"; "we will set a course toward safety. Before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger will be removed."

Clear and present danger there was to the American "national security", and that was the reason he gave why he was bound, "by the oath he had sworn as Commander-in-Chief", "to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction".

Most of the other governments represented in the Security Council as well as in the UN overall, did not share this risk assessment, and thus disagreed with the use of force in question, with this second Gulf War. They had asked the Bush government to share this "intelligence" that would leave "no doubt" that Iraq at that very moment still posessed WMD, and what it shared with them was deemed wholly unconvincing. "We are of the generation that needs to be convinced and, mister Powell, we are not convinced", remember that from Joschka Fischer?

3 countries do not constitute "Most of the other governments represented in the Security Council" nor in the UN. The US then proceeded to show the evidence in the Powell speech.

Once again I will ask that if Iraq had no WMD's, why the 12 years of bullshit? Why risk the results we have seen? Why the ruse?

If the Bush administration didn't honestly believe that Iraq had WMD's why the war?

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

nimh, McG is not good at identifying contradictions in others or in his own writings. Conclusion? It's a waste of time. c.i.

Still nothing to add?

0 Replies

McG, I'll grant you that Saddam went through twelve years of bullshit, but that does not equate to justificaiton for our bombing the **** out of their country because our government "thought" he had WMDs. That's what the UN Inspectors were there to check out - wasn't it? But the urgency of our government said there was no time. That becomes more questionable as more people that worked in OUR intelligence says otherwise. BTW, this is not an addition; it's a repeat - over and over.. c.i.

0 Replies

Some people refuse to see the truth c.i. I wouldn't waste your time.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Now explain to me the differences between my 2 quotes.

nimh wrote:
There is a distinct difference between "vot[ing] unanimously that Saddam had WMD's" and "declar[ing] that Saddam had failed to account for the [WMD] he had". You can only be truthful in one of these two quotes.

First we'd have to explain a bit of elementary logic to you. See the following.

McGentrix wrote:

The weapons existed, that much is certain. That means they still exist somewhere. It really is that simple.

No it is not. Pridian existence does not translate into subsequent existence except in the most absurd logic.

The logic you demonstrate here is one of the most inherently flawed sets of logic I have ever seen.

McGentrix wrote:

3 countries do not constitute "Most of the other governments represented in the Security Council" nor in the UN. The US then proceeded to show the evidence in the Powell speech.

It was not just 3 countries. If it were we'd have shown as much bysubmitting the second resolution.

Since we knew it was not going to pass we skipped the UN and decided to try to paint it as a united world with a few nations playing spoil sport (with France's hateability playing a great role).

McGentrix wrote:

If the Bush administration didn't honestly believe that Iraq had WMD's why the war?

I personally believe that they belived that there were WMDs. I also happen to think that this was not their primary motivation but was used to give a legal pretext.

0 Replies

Yeah, C.I. What's the use wasting your breath?

0 Replies

Tough crowd. Let me state that while I agree that there are plenty of people whose intellectual disposition is such that most discussion with them is pointless I do not believe McGentrix is one.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

If it is known that they had weapons, and now can not account for those weapons, it would stand to reason that they still have them. It is a matter of perception. Some people seem to trust Saddam when he says he no longer has them, other people seem to trust Bush when he says they do. The weapons existed, that much is certain. That means they still exist somewhere. It really is that simple.

Not exactly.

Chemical and biological agents degrade over time and are rendered useless. This could have happened with Saddam's stockpiles and he would've benefited from the illusion of having them--until, of course, Dubya decided he was a threat to world peace. Then, common-sensically, he would've been quick to deny having them (in order to avoid being invaded).

He also wouldn't necessarily have proof he no longer "had" them. In any event it's impossible to prove a negative, as the administration demanded in advance of the invasion ("prove you don't have WMD").

McGentrix wrote:

If the Bush administration didn't honestly believe that Iraq had WMD's why the war?

You're asking this question seriously? Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Quote:

nimh: Most of those 15 governments you talk about, representing an overwhelming majority on the UN SC, took the position that since the WMD at the moment could neither be shown to still be there nor to not be there any longer, inspections should continue.

McGentrix: There are only 15 seats on the UNSC.

Only 15 seats, yes, and the "most of those 15" that proposed the continuation of weapon inspections constituted "an overwhelming majority". Because, no -

Quote:

nimh: Most of the other governments represented in the Security Council as well as in the UN overall, did not share this risk assessment, and thus disagreed with the use of force in question, with this second Gulf War.

McGentrix: 3 countries do not constitute "Most of the other governments represented in the Security Council" nor in the UN. The US then proceeded to show the evidence in the Powell speech.

there were not just "3 countries" that remained unconvinced that the use of force was immediately necessary.

Just shortly before the war started, Mexico, Guinea, Pakistan, Chile and Angola came with a compromise proposal that was rejected both by US/UK and by France. They, too, made clear that, at that point in time, they would not condone a resolution that would authorize the US to wage a war against Iraq. The US could also not count on approval of France, Germany, Russia, China, Syria, and, I believe, Cameroon. That makes 11 out of 15. That's my "most of the other governments".

Only three other SC governments supported the risk assessment suggested by the US government about immediate intervention being necessary: the UK, Spain and Bulgaria.

Why did the US insist on immediate military intervention, rather than accepting, for example, a later deadline for Iraq to get its papers in order? Because it insisted it knew Iraq had WMD, at that very moment, and that those WMD posed too immediate a security threat.

Why did the majority of SC countries not support this assessment? Because they had listened to the Powell speech you mentioned, reviewed the 'evidence' he suggested about Iraq currently having WMD, and found it wholly unconvincing.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Now explain to me the differences between my 2 quotes.

In your original quote, you correctly state that "every country on the Security Council, in the unanimous Resolution 1441, declared that Saddam had failed to account for the [WMD]" he'd had.

In your later quote, you suggest that, with that, those "15 governments voted unanimously that Saddam had WMD's".

I don't know how to explain it in a different way than I already did, but the second really does not follow from the first. There is a difference between not being able to account for my past posessions and still having them. Just because I used to have a dangerous knive in my cupboard five years ago, doesnt mean its still there now, even if I havent taken photographs of how I threw it away. The difference is that basic.

I thank you for your extensive additional quotes from the resolutions, but they still do not equate one with the other. They say that, "Iraq [failed] to provide an accurate, full, final and complete disclosure of its WMD". And yes, with that alone already, as the Council stated, "Iraq [..] remained in material breach of its obligations". Like I said, Iraq could (or would) not prove it did not have WMD, and the UN SC noted that. That's all your quotes say. Nowhere do they conclude that "Saddam had WMD's". Had had WMD, sure; but not that he had them now.

We just didnt know whether he still had any or not; that's why the majority of the SC members wanted inspections to continue. Only the US and the UK claimed they "knew". They said they had the intelligence that proved Saddam's WMD could be used against America itself. That's purportedly why we had to attack, immeduiately. They also said they knew where he was hiding the WMD. Yet in none of the places they claimed they knew about even a shred of conclusive evidence of WMD has been recovered.

As I said somewheer else already, these are the same people who, during the war, had us believe that the Iraqi army quickly fell into disarray, humbled by the American advance - and on this we've actually been able to see they were right to some extent. Yet now we are supposed to believe that this regime in disarray, in the middle of war, was able to have sophisticated WMD, that purportedly could have been sent flying in the direction of enemy countries on rockets "within 45 minutes", dismantled and disappeared beyond any recoverable trace within the short time the American advance took?

McGentrix wrote:

It is a matter of perception. Some people seem to trust Saddam when he says he no longer has them, other people seem to trust Bush when he says they do. The weapons existed, that much is certain. That means they still exist somewhere. It really is that simple.

I didnt trust Saddam, thats why I wanted inspections to continue, and preferably carried out more aggressively. But I also think it's a bit much to "pre-emptively" attack a country - launching a whole new concept of justifying war - because you suspect it might have WMD. I suspected Iraq might have WMD, but it was clear for almost everyone - barring the US, the UK, Spain and Bulgaria - that there was no conclusive proof. And no, I don't trust Bush enough, either, to want to send armies into war simply because he says he knows Iraq does have WMD, though he cant actually share the conclusive evidence on it with us.

McGentrix wrote:

Once again I will ask that if Iraq had no WMD's, why the 12 years of bullshit? Why risk the results we have seen? Why the ruse?

If the Bush administration didn't honestly believe that Iraq had WMD's why the war?

A whole caboodle of possible reasons for the Bush administration to start war against Iraq has been explored on numerous threads on this forum, as well as elsewhere. Hey, didnt someone from the Bush admin itself tell the New Yorker recently about some of the other good reasons it had to consider attacking Iraq?

Your first question is somewhat more intrigueing, but also has many possible answers. Why the years of bullshit, why didnt Saddam just come clean? Perhaps because, like PDiddie suggested, he thought he would benefit from the illusion of still having them. Why did Saddam "risk the results we have seen"? Perhaps because he thought he could get away with it, playing the various SC states against each other. Because he thought it really wouldn't get that far, in the end - he just thought he was being pressured and bluffed into giving the UN full entrance. And that's exactly what he didnt want to provide. Why not? Because totalitarian dictatorships are not keen on sharing their every military document with a supranational body, ever.

He wasnt going to share any more than he had to, to save his skin - and he misestimated there. And who knows - perhaps they really didnt have all the required documents in proper order. We've all read the articles about the apparent infestation with loafers of the Iraqi secret services - this was a gbrutal regime, but also an inefficient, corrupt, messy regime. Its wholly possible that the chemical weapons had become degraded or been done away with, without the proper documentation in place that would have satisfied the UN regulations. We just dont know. Question is, should you go to war on something you just dont know?

0 Replies

As a piggy back on nimh's statement, "Yet in none of the places they claimed they knew about even a shred of conclusive evidence of WMD has been recovered," that includes over 200 sites our military have inspected without finding one shred of evidence. Are you seeing the picture yet? I'm sure we've communicated over 1,000 words. c.i.

0 Replies

I felt the need to share this...

CAMBRIDGE, Massachusetts (AP) -- Will Ferrell dusted off his George W. Bush impersonation for his Class Day speech to graduating seniors at Harvard University.

The former "Saturday Night Live" star pretended to read a letter from President Bush to the class of 2003.

"One of the challenges you will face is finding a job in our depressed economy," intoned Ferrell. "In fact, the chances of finding a job are about as good as finding weapons of mass destruction in the Iraqi desert -- slim and none, and slim just left the building."

The 35-year-old actor-comedian also gave the seniors tongue-in-cheek advice about going out into the real world.

"I'm sorry, graduates, this is a world where you aren't allowed to use your cell phones on airplanes, in movies or even during elective surgery," he said Wednesday.

Class Day preceded Harvard's commencement on Thursday.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

Now explain to me the differences between my 2 quotes.

nimh wrote:
There is a distinct difference between "vot[ing] unanimously that Saddam had WMD's" and "declar[ing] that Saddam had failed to account for the [WMD] he had". You can only be truthful in one of these two quotes.

First we'd have to explain a bit of elementary logic to you. See the following.

McGentrix wrote:

The weapons existed, that much is certain. That means they still exist somewhere. It really is that simple.

No it is not. Pridian existence does not translate into subsequent existence except in the most absurd logic.

The logic you demonstrate here is one of the most inherently flawed sets of logic I have ever seen.

First off, WTF is Pridian existance? Secondly, If you mean that "it existed once, that doesn't mean it still exists", I would ask how can you know?

Did aliens beam the weapons to another planet? I didn't think so either. We have evidece that Iraq had both biological and chemical weapons from both eye witness accounts and UN inspections. Do you agree with that?

Iraq can not provide proof that they have destroyed those weapons, nor can we prove that they have not. If neither side can show wat happened to them, then where are they?
Explain to me why that is "the most inherently flawed sets of logic I have ever seen."? Especially after reading some of the other stuff around here.

Quote:

McGentrix wrote:

3 countries do not constitute "Most of the other governments represented in the Security Council" nor in the UN. The US then proceeded to show the evidence in the Powell speech.

It was not just 3 countries. If it were we'd have shown as much bysubmitting the second resolution.

Since we knew it was not going to pass we skipped the UN and decided to try to paint it as a united world with a few nations playing spoil sport (with France's hateability playing a great role).

France Germany, Russia and Who? France, being a permanent member on the security council can effectively halt any resolution brought before the security council all by itself. I assume you know that, and realize that by France saying they would veto any additional resolutions, there was no sense in even submitting it.

Quote:

McGentrix wrote:

If the Bush administration didn't honestly believe that Iraq had WMD's why the war?

I personally believe that they belived that there were WMDs. I also happen to think that this was not their primary motivation but was used to give a legal pretext.

Then what was?

0 Replies

A June 10 letter to Condoleeza Rice from Rep. Henry Waxman, the ranking member of the House Committee on Government Reform.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16155

0 Replies

Craven wrote:

"The logic you demonstrate here is one of the most inherently flawed sets of logic I have ever seen."

Perhaps the simplest thing is to say there is no logic, which is why this endless discussion. It just goes on and on. Everybody's tried to explain - in some fairly simple ways - what this situation was actually about. Nimh, for existence, in explaining the number of seats in the UN and how the support went. In the explanations of the consideration of the evidence (and it's now being stated widely that a lot of that so-called evidence was cooked). In the report, widely quoted, that the decision made to go to war was a beaureaucratic decision - the only thing they could agree upon - and was made by Wolfowitz or Perle.

How many more times can that be told? What is happening is not that there's a consideration of logic, but of blind faith. And you can never reason with blind faith.

What's happening in Iraq today is not good. Originally the talk was about how you could win a war but winning the peace would be harder. Now it's beginning to appear that we were a bit hasty in saying we won the war. Of course, should they find the WMD, they can use them to help the war cause along.

Did anyone - does anyone - really care what happens to the Iraqis?

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Lot's of great stuff.

This is how I see it...in simple terms.

Bob (representing Iraq) across town went over and beat up Willy (Kuwait), his neighbor. Just out of the blue. Well, Bob's other neighbors got really scared and called the cops (UN). The cops came in and beat the **** out of Bob, and while they were there, spotted a whole bunch of **** that Bob had that he shouldn't have had. They tell Bob to get rid of it or else! To prove that Bob gets rid of it, the cops keep surviellence on Bobs house. They take pictures, go through his trash, the whole works, but Bob isn't really trying too hard to get rid of the stuff he has. The cops keep sending Bob notices telling Bob he had better get rid of it soon or they will keep sending him more notices!

During this time, Bob has beat his kids, tortured his wife, and killed the dog. The cops are aware of this, but don't feel the need to do anything about it.

Finally, some of the cops get tired of Bob's charade. The now that he hasn't gotten rid of the stuff he was supposed to, and they are tired of watching him beat his kids. Finally, this portion of the police dept (US,UK, etc) decide that they are going to do something about it, but they know that the other cops are not going to be so willing to go over to Bob's house without some convincing. So, they go on TV and say that Bob has a baseball bat in the top counter drawer next to the coffee pot, and he has a bottle of Acid under the sink, next to the drain-o, and he has a machete in the basement by the dryer, and he has a loaded .45 in the bedroom under his pillow.

Well, Bob watches this TV show and realizes that a **** storm is coming his way. He knows he won't have much time, but he does have some time so, at night, he has an unidentified friend come over and all the stuff that the cops mentioned on TV disappears. Well, The cops that are fed up decide to take action, but, not immediate action, first they park their cars in front of Bob's house with the lights on, and then they set up barricades, and they wait for a bit while the rest of the cops figure out if they are going to help, meanwhile, Bob hasn't shown one thing to the cops to make them leave, hasn't even shown his face in the window. Well, the cops finally barge in and lo and behold, the stuff he was supposed to have is gone! They then have to start looking for it, but while they do, the other cops are yelling at them and complaining and trying to do their job as well.

So, Bob disappears, the cops can't find anything, the kids are crying, the plumbing is backed up, there's no food in the fridge, heat doesn't work and the cops are left with egg on there face. All thet can do is search the house for what they knew was there, and try to take care of the kids the best they can.

Ok, a bit long I know, but I kind of got into it. I will not respond to a simple break down of what I have written, as this is what I think and that is that. Maybe I have given you some insight, maybe I have given you a laugh, whatever. Also, I am on my wifes "natural" keyboard so ignore any spelling errors.

0 Replies

Where Are All The W.M.D.s?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know