The vast conspiracy

[Moi]

It seems to me that even the UN was under the impression that Iraq posed a threat and had proliferated WMD's- which, by the way are not just nuclear weapons- as late as 11/8/03. How can anyone now claim that President Bush is a liar when the entire free world thought the same thing? In all the speeches from President Bush, Tony Blair and other coalition partners, I have not found one reference where they've mentioned WMD's other than in the vein that Saddam has the capability of creating them, the desire for more of them and the will to use them. The report from the inspectors clearly supports that biological, chemical and conventional weapons are being found and Iraq continued to have the capability to create more (against UN resolutions) and that they were pursuing nuclear as well (big time against UN resolutions).

The absence of a live nuclear war head doesn't make the above statements false. In fact, I'd say that these actions were just in time....I'd hate to have waited until the nuclear bomb was in the air headed for the USA to decide to do something.


For those of you who care to read...

http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/TestFrame/f2ea3b325ab183fac1256c8b003c2034?Opendocument

Resolution 1441 (2002)


Adopted by the Security Council at its 4644th meeting,
on 8 November 2002

The Security Council,

Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,

Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,

Recognizing the threat Iraq's non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

(emphsis in bold added)

 

[dijetlo]

by Moi
The absence of a live nuclear war head doesn't make the above statements false.

Yes, yes it does. If a policemen claims "the guy was coming at me with a knife" he better be able to produce the knife. Claiming the UN backed our actions in Iraq in any way is also a bit confusing. The UN pointedly refused to sanction the invasion and occupation. People have questions Moi, major valid questions about how and why we've ended up in this mess. Questions GWB is going to have to answer if he hopes to avoid his fathers fate of becoming a 1 term president.

 

[SLClemens]

And what of Tony Blair's claim that Iraq was ready to deploy chemical weapons at 45 minute's notice? Total BS. France argued that Saddam may have had some WMD capacity but that there was no urgent threat. They were a lot closer to the truth.

 

[nbdysfu]

"The last time the French asked for 'more proof' it came marching into Paris under a German flag." ---David Letterman

 

[dijetlo]

Originally posted by nbdysfu
"The last time the French asked for 'more proof' it came marching into Paris under a German flag." ---David Letterman

Very amusing, but incorrect.

 

[nbdysfu]

France is not now the nation it was then; it should be wiser for it. Was France asking Nevil for help and getting only "Peace In Our Time," or was the ruling body of France blindly seeking the same policy dijetlo? Sorry, actually I guess that's a gaping hole in what I remember.

From what I know Hitler came to power using his army of brown shirts' riots to win the support of the ruling party by violently taking care of the socialist and communist parties for them. Soon the number of troops in the military was raised well above that agreed upon in the peace treaties of wwi. Military hardware was stockpiled. Germany began reclaiming many of its smaller but strategically important neighbors. The French were busy building a Maginot line against a cross-channel invasion.

Originally posted by Moi
It seems to me that even the UN was under the impression that Iraq posed a threat and had proliferated WMD's- which, by the way are not just nuclear weapons- as late as 11/8/03. How can anyone now claim that President Bush is a liar when the entire free world thought the same thing? In all the speeches from President Bush, Tony Blair and other coalition partners, I have not found one reference where they've mentioned WMD's other than in the vein that Saddam has the capability of creating them, the desire for more of them and the will to use them. The report from the inspectors clearly supports that biological, chemical and conventional weapons are being found and Iraq continued to have the capability to create more (against UN resolutions) and that they were pursuing nuclear as well (big time against UN resolutions).
______________________________________________

Originally posted by SLC
France argued that Saddam may have had some WMD capacity but that there was no urgent threat. They were a lot closer to the truth.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

France appears to be right on nukes, that program _appears to have been entirely mothballed, though not destroyed by Saddam.
Nukes are actually near impossible to use, because it's a sure thing that the world will condemn you for using them. Did Hitler use chemical weapons on the battlefield, as they had been outlawed after wwi? Saddam had used the other listed wmds before, on his own people.
There's plenty else to tell otherwise that Saddam was dangerous, so I don't see why we're getting stuck by them on their not being any easily found nukes.

 

[dijetlo]

Originally posted by nbdysfu
France is not now the nation it was then; it should be wiser for it. Was France asking Nevil for help and getting only "Peace In Our Time," or was the ruling body of France blindly seeking the same policy dijetlo? Sorry, actually I guess that's a gaping hole in what I remember.

No worries, NB. It seems a rather esoteric hole, but if you want to fill it, a synopsis is available.

From what I know Hitler came to power using his army of brown shirts' riots to win the support of the ruling party by violently taking care of the socialist and communist parties for them. Soon the number of troops in the military was raised well above that agreed upon in the peace treaties of wwi. Military hardware was stockpiled. Germany began reclaiming many of its smaller but strategically important neighbors. The French were busy building a Maginot line against a cross-channel invasion.

True, but the anology is faulty. Islamic terrorism is not state sponsored, it is a religious movement. If Al-Qaeda are the brown shirts, Saddam Hussein is certainly not Adolph Hitler. OBL has repeatedly called for the destruction of his government along with all other non-islamic states in the ME. We are likely facing some of OBLs' fellow travellors in Iraq, along with baathists and every Muhjahadeen who has enough money to get there.

There's plenty else to tell otherwise that Saddam was dangerous, so I don't see why we're getting stuck by them on their not being any easily found nukes.

Based on Kays mid report, all we've found so far that stands up to independant scrutiny is a rusty bucket of botulism that you can make with eggs and milk. We attacked him because his WMD capability and his ties to terrorism made him a threat to us (remember the pre-emptive doctrine). If we can't demonstrate either, our actions can only be considered colonialism at its' boldest. What that translates to for you and me is a breakdown in the forces that are needed to combat global terrorism and the creation of a fertile breeding ground for future terrorists. I wouldn't put Iraq in the win column for GWB or the US unless we can prove our actions were prudent and timely. The best we can hope for in any other scenario is to slap a government together and get out, but even that is a forlorn hope now that we are engaged in an escalating guerrilla war with the lunatic fringe of the middle east.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by dijetlo
Yes, yes it does. If a policemen claims "the guy was coming at me with a knife" he better be able to produce the knife. Claiming the UN backed our actions in Iraq in any way is also a bit confusing. The UN pointedly refused to sanction the invasion and occupation. People have questions Moi, major valid questions about how and why we've ended up in this mess. Questions GWB is going to have to answer if he hopes to avoid his fathers fate of becoming a 1 term president.

The object of my post was the UN's agreement that Saddam posed a threat and had WMD's- that's a direct quote from their resolution of 11/8/02 (sorry, typo earlier). The inspectors had not been able to determine their destruction.

The President, congress and the other coalition partners relied on that information, coupled with other intelligence indicating that (i) destruction never took place and (ii) had, in fact, geared up to create more.

As for the analogy of the policeman, yes, if a policeman claimed someone threatened him with a knife and he was able to arrest the man immediately, the knife should have been found. However, in the same analogy, if the policeman claimed that someone threatened him with a gun and the gun was, in fact, found - but unloaded - the threat was still real and the policeman acted justly.

WMD's have been found during our search. No, a nuclear warhead hasn't been found, but never, to my knowledge, has anyone said that they believed he had warheads, specifically. The report by to congress in October clearly indicates that biological and chemical weapons were found, capabilities were being increased and that nuclear materials were found. Given that, it's difficult to say that those for this action were, in fact, liars as some on this board have claimed.

 

[nbdysfu]

Nice link dijetlo, but it left out what I was trying to remember[so here it is], Which is why France, The neighboring historic opposition to Germany, is so absent from the abbreviated history of this particular point in time. When Hitler gained power in 1933, he began by starting the increase of the armed forces from the maximum allowed by the agreement signed to end wwi, 100,000 men of 7 divisions, to 2,750,000 in 103 divisions including six armored and four motorized divisions and 4,000 modern fighter bombers, in the following six years. I've never found a reference to France blinking an eye at that, except where it is said that France's colonial interests elsewhere could be used as an easy distraction to get Hitler his way.

Quoted from Alan Bullock.Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives.c1991[HCP Ltd. London],p1993 Vintage Books, USA

According to November 1937 Hossbach transcripts of Hitler cabinet meeting
The date[for bkreig] was fixed by the relative progress of Germanys' and other nations' rearmament. After the period 1943 to 1945, the relative advantage given by german rearmament would decrease; German equipment would begin to be out of date, and other nations which had begun to rearm later would overtake her.
Hitler defined the first objective as "to overthrow Checkoslovakia and Austria simultaneously to remove the threat to our flank in any possible operation against the West." In addition to providing better and shorter frontiers as well as the manpower for 12 new divisions, the incorporation of the two Central European states with Germany would mean "an acquisition of foodstuffs for 5-6 million people, on the assumption that the compulsory emigration of 2 million people from Checkoslovakia and 1 million from Austria was predictable." At no point did Hitler refer to the "liberation of the Sudeten Germans from the intolerable persecution by the Czechs" which he made the justification for his actions in the Czech crisis of 1938; he spoke only of the "overthrow" of Czechoslovakia as a state, and "crushing the Czechs." Hitler, however, did not pursue this glimpse into the future. He hardly referred to Eastern Europe, where the conquest of Lebensraum was to take place, or to Russia and Poland, but confined himself to the preliminary phase, "the necessity for action which might arise before 1943-1945" and to the two hate inspired antagonists, Britain and France . . . who were opposed to any strengthening of Germany's position in Europe or overseas." He saw the opportunity for action arising in two cases: if internal strife in France reached the point of Civil War and she became incapable of war, or if France
became embroiled in war with another country, and so became unable to act against Germany. If either contingency occured,the opportunity must be seized to overthrow Austria and Checkoslovakia. Hitler spoke of the second "coming definitely nearer," possibly emerging from tensions in the Mediterranean "even as early as 1938," especially if Mussolini chose to remain in the Balearic Isles and became involved in a war with France and Britain. This would provide a splendid opportunity for Germany to begin "the assault on "Czechoslovakia . . . with lightning rapidity." German policy should be therefore to prolong the Spanish war and encourage the Italians to establish a permanent occupation of the Balearics.

None of this came as a surprise to Hitler's listeners. . . . Hitler expressed the view that "almost certainly Britain, and probably France as well, had already tacitly written off the Czechs,"

. . .
March 13th 1938
Litvinov [USSR] warned the Central Committee: "The annexation of Austria is the greatest since the World War, and is frought with the greatest dangers, not least to our union." But all that Litvinov could do was to offer to consult with the other powers on the best way to check further aggression:

"It may be too late tomorrow but today the time for it is not yet gone if all the states, and the Great Powers in particular, take a firm and unambiguous stand."

Litvinov was referring specifically to Checkoslovakia, with Russia and France bound by treaty to assist, if attacked. . . . In fact as he told the U.S. ambassador privately, neither the French[Mediterranean] nor the Russians[Stalin's removal of veteran leadership in Red Army] had any confidence in each other and he thought it likely the Czechs would cave in. . . . Stalin had none of the difficulty of the British and French leaders had in recognizing that Hitler was following a course that would lead to war if he was not stopped, that there was a common interest in preventing war, and that if the powers acted together they could force him to back down. . . .

The French did not reply at all, the British though Litvinov's proposal of a conference inappropriate, as it would divide Europe into two camps and appear to be branding Germany as an agressor[duh]. This confirmed Russian skepticism that they[France, Britain] were not serious about collective security[League of Nations i presume], in which case Litvinov's proposal absolved the Soviet government from responsibility for its failure. . .
__________________ __________________

Which is suggesting France ignored threats and obligations against themselves and their allies, the banned rearmament of Germany, in favor of protecting their colonies from Italy.

 

[dijetlo]

Originally posted by Moi
The President, congress and the other coalition partners relied on that information, coupled with other intelligence indicating that (i) destruction never took place and (ii) had, in fact, geared up to create more.

They were wrong Moi. He had no chem or nuke program, even Kay has said as much. He's claiming a bio program existed, but has failed to find proof that he's willing to share with the world. (The "proof " from the mid report failed to impress anybody.)

As for the analogy of the policeman, yes, if a policeman claimed someone threatened him with a knife and he was able to arrest the man immediately, the knife should have been found. However, in the same analogy, if the policeman claimed that someone threatened him with a gun and the gun was, in fact, found - but unloaded - the threat was still real and the policeman acted justly.

The problem with your analogy is Saddam never threatened us with anything. He wasn't capable of threatening the Northern half of his own country, and without WMDs' and terrorists to deliver them he certainly wasn't able to threaten us.

WMD's have been found during our search...The report by to congress in October clearly indicates that biological and chemical weapons were found, capabilities were being increased and that nuclear materials were found. Given that, it's difficult to say that those for this action were, in fact, liars as some on this board have claimed.

No Moi, they haven't found squatt. No WMDs', no manufacturing facilities dedicated to producing, no labs dedicated to developing them. We've found a big goose egg so far, unless you count a rusty bucket of botulism. Don't take my word for it, read Kays Testimony to the Senate intel committee
From the report.

A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW research.

But no proof such activity took place, the equipment was being monitored by the UN, as well as the sites for 8 years with no evidence any of it was used to grow killer germs. He's talking about an "incubator" he found in a medical laboratories. When a culture is taken of your throat, for example, the culture is grown for a day or so in one of these before it can be tested for strep.

A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW agents, that Iraqi officials working to prepare for UN inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN.

" possibly used in human testing of BW agents", or possibly not Again, no evidence. No bodies of the victims of this testing, no containment capable of stoping the spread of these virulent germs. Just a prison hospital, we have those, don't we?

Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons.

The referent strain is botulism, which occurs naturaly. This is the bucket of Botulism that got Kay laughed at by the intell committee.

New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF)

Again when pressed, these were civilian labs involved in the treatment of these diseases.

Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists' homes, that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS).

" that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment". He has some papers on laser enrichment that were published in a scientific journal and some titanium parts from a centrifuge, both acquired when the Iraqis dismantled thier nuke program in the mid 90s'.

A line of UAVs not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 km, 350 km beyond the permissible limit.

Ah yes, thier radio shack airforce. The UAVs' were real enough, unfortunately they were just model airplanes and not modified for reconasciance or dispersal of aerosal contaminates, and as such not a threat to anybody.

Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited SCUD variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told to conceal from the UN.

A friend of mine who works in the committee recounted a closed door exchange that went something like this.
I think it was Senator Rockafeller who asked, "Did you find a scude?"
Kay "No"
Rockafeller "So what does this mean, "continuing covert capability"
Kay" They had the ability to make the fuel."
Rockafeller: "For a rocket they don't have"
Kay: "Yes sir"

Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1000 km - well beyond the 150 km range limit imposed by the UN. Missiles of a 1000 km range would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets through out the Middle East, including Ankara, Cairo, and Abu Dhabi.

Which they were destroying at the initiation of hostilies at the request of the UN.

Clandestine attempts between late-1999 and 2002 to obtain from North Korea technology related to 1,300 km range ballistic missiles --probably the No Dong -- 300 km range anti-ship cruise missiles, and other prohibited military equipment.

More vapor, like the Nigeria yellow-cake scandal that blew up all over the whitehouse this summer.
The bottom line is we invaded the country under the doctrine of pre-emtion and have failed to find the "growing threat" our attack was based on.
Perhaps how you understand why the opponents of this war are so motivated, the war was sham, the WMDs' were a sham. I hate getting played for a fool, especially by my own president. He was contained and should have been left in his box.

 

[dijetlo]

Originally posted by nbdysfu
Was France asking Nevil for help and getting only "Peace In Our Time," or was the ruling body of France blindly seeking the same policy dijetlo?

France felt it was safe from Germany behind the Maginot line, much like we are begining argue that the troops in Iraq are protecting us from terrorists at home. Like the french, we are facing the wrong way, fighting the wrong enemy, and ignoring our allies along the way.
That said, WWII analogies do not really apply to our current situation. Read the prior post on the Kay report for further edification.

 

[green lantern]

alot of people seem to forget that saddam gassed and killed alot of his own people, the kurds if i am not mistaken. he has shown the ability and the will to do this to his own people. the united states tried and tried to get the un to stand up and back up its own resolutions, but to no avail. if the un would have shown a little backbone, we may have avoided this whole mess. as for me personally, i view this as a no win situation for the united states and george bush. we either sit on our hands, knowing we have no proof that saddam ever destroyed his wmd developement programs, and at the same time receiving intelligence that he may well be developing more,and then praying he knows better than to ever use them. the other scenario being we do nothing, and he uses these weapons on us or our allies, and then we take heat for not doing anything when we had warning that he was up to something. in this case, i do not have a problem with a preemptive strike. for to long the un turned a blind eye to the shenanigans of the regime in baghdad, backing down every time hussein flaunted one of the un resolutions that he agreed to to end the first gulf war. regarding the policeman who takes someone down believing they were coming at him with a knife,from a posting by dijetlo i believe, this is a little different. the knife woild effect one person immediately, while wmd would effect thousands at one time, as i stated earlier, he did this to his own people, what makes anybody think he would not do it to us if given the chance.

 

[DKSuddeth]

alot of people seem to forget that saddam gassed and killed alot of his own people, the kurds if i am not mistaken.

what a lot of people also dont know is that when that incident happened our very own CIA fabricated a report to make it look like the iranians were inadvertantly responsible for that attack.

That has since been questioned but never resolved as far as I know but the report from the CIA initially stated that the kurds were killed by blood agents and not nerve agents.

 

[green lantern]

nerve agent or blood agent, same results, a lot of dead kurds either way you slice. but i did not know of the fabricated iranian connection. i will have to check into that. thanks for the lead.

 

[DKSuddeth]

heres one link I was able to find right off.

http://www.supplysideinvestor.com/showarticle.asp?articleid=2243

 

[green lantern]

thanks for the link dk, very interesting reading, to say the least. would definitely suck to live in that part of the world, if your neighbor dont kill you, your own leader will. so sad that life seems to be so cheap over there. thanks for taking the time to pull up that link. happy holidays

 

[nbdysfu]

"It may be too late tomorrow but today the time for it is not yet gone if all the states, and the Great Powers in particular, take a firm and unambiguous stand."

Litvinov was referring specifically to Checkoslovakia, with Russia and France bound by treaty to assist, if attacked.

And yet France was busy building the Maginot line on its western front, depleting its defense funds in doing so, a defense only against its allies [Nato inside Nato,] France was not interested in the illegal actions of Hitler[Saddam,] despite the insistance of its ally, the USSR[USA,] whom it did not trust for political reasons(bloody coup[supposed imperialism]).

Originally posted by dijetlo
True, but the anology is faulty. Islamic terrorism is not state sponsored, it is a religious movement. If Al-Qaeda are the brown shirts, Saddam Hussein is certainly not Adolph Hitler. OBL has repeatedly called for the destruction of his government along with all other non-islamic states in the ME. We are likely facing some of OBLs' fellow travellors in Iraq, along with baathists and every Muhjahadeen who has enough money to get there.
_____________________________________

Islamic terrorism is not a religious movement. It is a "lunatic fringe" as you call it. It's a perversion of faith, as much as the HRE, but without the power. Palestine is about to be thanks to Arafat. The Taliban were closely linked to Al-queda. Most Islamic governments have supported terrorists groups in their midst until as of late. So there was no state to sponsor terrorism in Iraq? You're right.

The United States sponsored terrorism in Iraq. We gave aid to Saddam and his army until he gassed the Kurds.

Iraq was a colony of the US the moment we funded Saddam's rise. While some say it is an occupation we are waging now, I think it is more accurately described as a 'liberation,' not from terrorism, but from our own cold war 'under the table' colonialism. Saddam's authoritarian government became the image of what the US desired to create for the ME, and that has to be changed. We can not afford to be the supporters of secular dictators if we are to win the support of anyone in the ME.

In the past few weeks many Islamic nations have begun rounding up terrorist suspects in response to bombings on their own soil. I agree that it looks bad for us, it also looks bad for the terrorists. Going to write more but suddenly acquired job and have to sleep more regularly, Happy Turkey Day.